User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)

Archives

---

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

Charter of Wikimedia Movement (WMM)

WMF. Matrix of Participation by iCIV
Levels of participation and influence of iCIV		Six circular steps of a WMF-process
Partnership	+++	Agenda setting  ► Drafting     ▲   ▼    Reformulation  ↻  Decision    ▲   ▼      Monitoring  ◄  Implementation
Dialogue	++
Consultation	+
Information	0
This figure is a derivate of an adoption by the     Congress of International Non Governmental Organisation (CE)

The Wikipedia Movement (WMM) is an out-standing project and its developement must be out-standing too to stick to the successful basic idea: Testing new proposals of cooperation beyond existing limits. In Working Together Lila Tretikov as the Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has anounced an approach of a new Wikipedian Life at New Frontiers (9 days to go till publishing). Wellcome to all explorers on the new track of cooperation, diversity and subsidiarity, the future Guiding Principles of Wikimedia Movement (WMM) – This shall be On the Scale of Billons. Next - let´s try a Request for Comment (RfC): Charter of Wikimedia Movement (WMM-Charter) - with Lila´s new proposals as a solid base to develope further requirements and on-going interests of the international Community of Individual Volunteers (iCIV).

Hongkong, San Francisco. You name it! WMF has responsibilies to develope the free knowlegde of the world and its own organizational conditions so people can contribute in a ballanced way of mutual interests and diversity growing - in a world changing day after day, fate by fate. --Edward Steintain (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Please, don't give people instructions but set new trends how to cooperate as partners at every level.

The Wikimedia Foundation has no rightful claim to speak for the movement, and —sorry to be blunt— has certainly abrogated the right to talk about 'working together" since their recently demonstrated policy has been to tell the community to go screw themselves. --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I declare: The term Movement (WMM) and its definition are in possession of the Movement of the international Commutity of Individual Vontunteers (WMM of iCIV) participating with Wikimedia. iCIV as the community and movement shall write the Charter of Wikimedia Movement applying the good idea of Bylaws: ARTICLE II - STATEMENT OF PURPOSE too. iCIV shall coordinate contributions of WMF – to be fair to WMF while iCIV is developing the Charter of Wikimedia Movement (WMM). I tend giving to check the idea of cooperation, diversity, and subsidiarity a chance - despite of … (please teach me what I must do to forgive.) --Edward Steintain (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What is really important here is that Edward is looking forward into what needs to be done, vs. what has been done. We have a rich and important history, yet my (and yours if you choose to accept it) job is to ensure we are healthy and relevant in the future -- in the world that is rapidly evolving. With that, I am watching for those who are willing and able to engage in looking forward. -- LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Lila, in your position there's a trap you can easily fall into. The problem is, where to set your threshold for who to respond to. There's no point in responding to cranks... right? But, suppose you were, for whatever reason, in the position of advocating something that, for reasons you're not seeing, was a truly bad idea. If you set out to only respond to people who are "being productive", and if your definition of "being productive" excludes those who say what you're doing is a truly bad idea, then you may end up, for seemingly practical and non-ideological reasons, preventing yourself from becoming aware that what you're doing is a truly bad idea. The problem is further compounded if you've come into the middle of a situation that's been brewing for a long time, and resentments are already running high; because this will tend to raise the level of annoyance and distrust by those speaking to you from certain perspectives, and if you disregard comments based on annoyance/distrust level you will therefore end up disregarding comments based on perspective.

What I see here is that you're starting from the assumption that certain kinds of things "have" to be done, and those who say they don't have to be done will get statistically filtered out of dialog with you. I'm not saying this is an easy problem to solve; that's yet another thing I don't like about AGF, that it tries to trivialize a genuinely difficult problem. The current negotiations being hosted by Egypt between Israel and Hamas are described as "indirect negotiations", which as best I can figure means these folks can't stand each other to the point where they probably can't even be safely put in the same room together, so the Egyptians have to go back and forth between them. But it's important to recognize that it is a problem; that your quest for civil dialog can sometimes isolate you from things when you most need to hear them. --Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I am pretty clear that I embrace discourse. I think plurality of opinions is important to progress. What I am staying clear of is emotional wight that brings no additional benefit to conversations. I do not plan to engage in shouting matches, insults, or sarcasm. Not only do I think it is bad form, I think it is damaging to our culture and our project. This does not mean I don't like anyone personally and that I would not talk to them: I would be happy to speak with anyone who is genuinely and mutually respectful. -- LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"I think I am pretty clear that I embrace discourse." You do enunciate this claim clearly. However, saying that is easy and, given the history here, carries no weight. When you say something like (as you did say, just above)

What is really important here is that Edward is looking forward into what needs to be done, vs. what has been done. We have a rich and important history, yet my (and yours if you choose to accept it) job is to ensure we are healthy and relevant in the future -- in the world that is rapidly evolving. With that, I am watching for those who are willing and able to engage in looking forward.

what that sounds like is, you are willing to listen to someone who agrees with you in the agenda you have decided is "necessary" in order to do what you have defined as "moving forward" (well, okay, maybe it's the agenda your employer has instructed you to beleive is necessary). In other words, those who disagree with you are not looking forward and therefore aren't to be listened to. There's good reason to suppose that's what your words actually mean, because Jan-Bart's statement a while back overtly stated that anyone in the community who disagrees with the way the Foundation has decided to go should leave. That was followed by that extraordinarily tone-deaf joint letter from you and Erik.

Here's a peripherally related anecdote. Somewhere in all this I was describing the interactive tools I'm developing, the discussion got into specifics, and I remarked that —as is routine with wikis— when occasionally you need a bit of markup that's complicated, you'll usually be able to just copy a similar bit previously written for a similar purpose, and make the obvious changes for what you need now. The response I got was a sneer about "cargo-cult programming". The lesson of this story: Imitation is at the forefront of how non-text wiki markup gets written. By expressing contempt for that technique, the respondent was expressing contempt for ordinary wiki contributors. That's the deep-seated default attitude from which a typical professional programmer would likely start when contemplating the volunteer community of an open wiki. You won't get wiki-nurturing decisions, large or small, out of that kind of environment, whatever "compensating" measures you try to take.

You're in a difficult position: you have to simultaneously go about making decisions in the right way and end up making the right decisions. When you don't listen to things you don't want to hear (and your remark that I quoted above is essentially stating that intention), some people may object on procedural grounds; but you're also going to get yourself in trouble on the making-wrong-decisions front. --Pi zero (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In 9 days Lila will present a new approach of cooperation and WMF has a historical chance to out itself as a supporter of the New World of participation by Cooperation, Diversity, and Subsidiarity. In this situation I set a nomark (dtsch: Neinzeichen): Two opposit dots at the Phoenician N. (Dtsch: Das um zwei gegenüberliegende Punkte ergänzte phönizische N wird als neues Satzzeichen zur kulturellen Bewährung angeboten und Neinzeichen oder Verneinungszeichen (engl.: Negationmark) genannt. Es markiert das Ende eines Satzes mit einer Ablehnung. In seiner kulturellen Wirkung signalisiert das Neinzeichen den Bedarf zur Kooperation: Die Punkte als Opponenten stehen sich einander gegenüber, nähern sich anfangs auf abweichenden Wegen, um sich dann auf einer gemeinsamen und verbindenden Linie zu treffen.)

… en:nomark/de:Neinzeichen: Yes of cause, say NO and keep on marking it. But starting as one of the opposit dots keep on trying to meet on the nomark-middleline with common (bilateral) interests. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomark has been called Negationmark (Negociationmark, Neinzeichen, Verneinungszeichen), too ;-) Let´s try to be aware of listening to NO and then get together, you can call coordination too (Say it in Old broken WMF English: coordination!)

WMF is in competition, said by LT (SF). What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding? Is WMF getting old? The future of WMF and WMM: when the last bubble is plopping. Please give me a straw to hang and blow on! WMF has severe problems to meet marketing demands of contributors and customers. As a warning a nomark (negationmark, dtsch: Neinzeichen) was set. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikimedia Movement a historical repercussion of conciliate or collide? In a few days (9) we shall know. --Edward Steintain (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The expression shows a negative number for about a week... So, did you find out..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a calculation for a certain time of duration. The underlying computing expression to calculate a difference of days was only valid till November 19, 2014.</ref> Thanks for asking. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please let me suggest that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF, the donator of the wiki-idea) and Wikimedia Movement (WMM, the donator by contribution), represented by the international Community of Individual Vonlunteers (iCIV) shall ask the International Non-Governmental Organizations of the Council of Europe (INGO of CE) for support to develope the Charter of Wikimedia Movement (Chater of WMM). --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cooperation evolves if I am prepared to wait with an attitude of tolerance in a situation of diversity. A nomark (negationmark) signals the demand for bilateral developement and the retention of newcomers and oldhanders ready for foot voting (which accually means shunning – no cooperation). --Edward Steintain (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The What´s To Do List of Charter of WMM (QIOP)

Questions

1. WMM as an organisation of WMF and iCIV is in a wilderness of interpersonal interaction. The administrations of WMF and the Chapters of iCIV overrule commitments of the wiki-idea in a battle of their underdeveloped rules of cooperation. Who is going to describe what tolerance realy means to WMM (call it double-u / double-m, Wikimedia Movement) in future? --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC) A Nomark points out objections. Some need a nomark to realize that there are problems. Lots of nomarks signal the urgent demand for change. Please, let´s try to give Nomark an ASCII-Code. A mutual Nomark is quite unbloody.
2. Who is a specialist for the practical application of cooperation? – Please name one or three names for every continent/chapter to enshure diversity and subsidiarity. --Edward Steintain (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Is WMF going to develope the splendid Wiki-idea to be the first global internet-based Tante-Emma-Laden of free knowlegde? --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Cooperation is based on trust. Which signals inspire trustworthiness? --Edward Steintain (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. What are the most important first hundred words of the world and what comes first in this list: Knowlegde or Cooperation? --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Small events of daily wikipedian life – simple details: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/ is not working any more. Which intervention ruined the project? Who's investigation clarifies this? --Edward Steintain (talk)
7. Does the wiki-idea need advertisment for the new deal: Cooperation? (Please compare Informations, Nr. 7). --Edward Steintain (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Will new administrators and WMF-staff have to participate in a basic training programm about cooperation to get a licence to apply for administrator-election or to be a WMF-supporter of the iCIV = international Community of Individual Volunteers? (WMF and WMM have no certified quality-management = global Tante Emma Laden of free knowledge in future) --Edward Steintain (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC) | staff training: compare foreign chambers of commerce in Chile.

   Solution. Costs are estimated to be 50 to 100 k€ to develope a basic training programm of cooperation and tolerance. Particiation in a training programm is as everthing in the WMM absolutely voluntarily. What to gain by a c&t-training (the mission statement) shall be developed by WMM and WMF in cooperation/coordination. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

   It takes about the same amount to develope and introduce the programm „Train-the-Trainer of c&t“ who are the one´s to transfer principles of cooperation and tolerance to WMM and WMF. --Edward Steintain (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

   On this possible way to future do not hesitate to contribute your objection. Mark it with a preliminary acronym of the new nomark (dtsch. Neinzeichen, Neinzeichen is a Satzzeichen). As an acronym of a nomark use :ϟ. Every voice counts! Dare to write YES! or NO:ϟ or I DON'T KNOW? in public and mark it as your personal contribution to the community you are living in and how it shall be developed. Good luck --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

9. What has been lost or is rotten with the wiki-idea if I am the only one who is testing QIOP? How is the community handling new suggestion? Is this a wikipedian ha-ha – keep unpredictible living lifestock out? Peace and tolerance: Everthing is on a voluntary base - just like a bit of life! --Edward Steintain (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
10. Is the process of developement unstructured in part? (please compare Where are we?) The Working together of WMM and WMF requires a commitment to ISO 9000+. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
11. Failures happen. Do WMM and WMF need a critical incident reporting system (deutsch de:CIRS) with contributions by anonymously written letters as part of a quality management which will support cooperation? --Edward Steintain (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
12. Cooperation and tolerance need to have a nursery. In some chapters or parts of WMF inherited developements are not productive by the means of cooperation and tolerance. Does Wikipedia need patrols (dtsch Streife) to enshure cooperation and tolerance and to suggest to the one how is meant to be an offender a discussion and inviting the one „who has been picked up“ to participate (on a subsidiarity base) to talk with trained „cooperation specialists“ of WMM and WMF? --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC) (This is a suggestion to Don't excluded:ϟ. Give a chance for inclusion!)
13. Losing contributors. Could one reason possibly be bullying in one or the other chapter? (Janice Harper, Ph.D.: Three Faces of Bullying, Psychology Today, New York, March 22, 2013 in Beyond Bullying). --Edward Steintain (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
14. Wiki is a very successful idea millions are contributing to. Who is meant if Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is writing we? --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC) We do not appreciate the we of WMF – we declare which is me being a voluntary member of Wikimedia Movement (WMM).
15. During zwo or three thousand years mankind has worked very hard to understand tolerance and paid a lot. The next step will be positive reciprocity – I suggest. This shall be called cooperation beyond the reciprocity known today. Wiki is not post-modern any more, it is going to be „structured cooperation“ which will be developed after having started with free knowledge. What shall we do with free knowledge next? Push the broom on-wiki? Consensus is getting old (while wiki is still young) and has to be adapted. Cooperation is only named once on Consensus. --84.62.140.174 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
16. Could it be possible that WMF was wounded or is suffering from conflicts and some battles and is now getting to the stage of bargaing? iCIV (WMM) has a strong hand to reach out. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Informations

1. Prototype of WMM-Charter: WMF pays for professional assistance to develope structured cooperation in the chapters which shall narrow or close the gap between the rule-ridden Wikipediator and the brave (new) Contributor. The easiest way of cooperation is to be tolerant by simply waiting instead of executing immediately. --Edward Steintain (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Solution. It only needs a couple of 100.000 Euros or US-Dollars per selected chapter (as a prototype) to simulate new structures of cooperation under professional assistance. The Wiki-idea is a precussor of developements pointing into future of now-a-day mankind: This means structured cooperation. Cooperation is very effective and successfull – being proofed yesterday, today, and tomorrow. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
   Chapters, please apply at WMF to be the first of the WMM (Wikimedia Movement). You are dug in by administrating Wikipedia. Get out of your hole: Support free knowledge by structured cooperation to be developed. WMM is facing new frontiers everyday. Please, help to go beyond.
3. People know much more than what can be quoted from written stuff. Competitors of Wikimedia offer with their systems a better chance for people to interact and cooperate than Wikimedia does. Wikipedia offers no chance to pick-up (controverse) topics and develope a lemma - it has to be “wp:relevant”. Wikimedia should have a look at en:Debategraph. Wikimedia has competence in knowledge. The next step shall be collecting and applying it in cooperative systems – starting with WMM and WMF. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia is a global role model to create and deliver free knowledge. It can be developed to a global role model how this is done in the best of possible ways: by structured cooperation of an organization and volunteers. --Edward Steintain (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Next to wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/... once there will be wikimediamovement.org/wiki/... (WMF is exposed to competion – generally on a global scale and intraorganizationally with a global community.) Compare Superprotect with Superneglect. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Wiki-Idea: Talking to eachother by written words is a repercussion of Babylon. I don´t want this Brave New Wiki-World:ϟ (:ϟ meaning nomark). New online-trends need to feed realty social interactions. Wiki means to be a member of The Movement (WMM) – hand in hand physically: A life beyond electronic visual displays. --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Gossip is a cultural intervention that frames the reputaion of an organization – over years. The new signs for cooperation have to be very distinct and convincing. --Edward Steintain (talk)
8. Software is not softskill (please compare infrastructure). --Edward Steintain (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
9. Solution. Chapters will be made responsible to develope structures to prevent bullying by their acknowledgement „not to look away“. Citation: „... in workplace bullying, the instigators are very often people in positions of organizational leadership, or who have the organizational support of someone in a position of leadership.“[1] Someone might call this a vertical tolerance of now-a-day Wikipedia which was a widely accepted principle 900 to 1.600 years ago by the one´s in power. (Rainer Forst. Toleranz im Konflikt, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2003, p. 27-127) --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
10. Cooperation could be a fair solution of Some thoughts here and there. Communication is a good start. WMF needs a management for communication by an agreed practice. The principles of communication will be develope by the „Chater of Wikimedia Movement“. Generally WMF is prone to use a structured quality management in detail to promote the wiki-idea of free knowledge. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
11. Who ever thinks „You are wrong:ϟ“ (acronym for nomark (dtsch: Neinzeichen)) I tell you: „You are right!“ Decissions in a voluntary system have to be made together to start working together (which can be called a new structured cooperation on-wiki with tolerance - WMM and WMF). My [en:Self-esteem self-esteem] (dtsch: [Selbstwert https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selbstwert] is vanishing participating with Wikipedia. I am one of a million of the WMM (Wikimedia Movement). My wife says: „Forget it! There is no solution in sight and there never shall be one. I would not object if Wikipedia blocks you.“ I love my wife – she became a co-wikipedian - involuntarily, she wants to point out.. I respect her feelings. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Objections

1. People – not even WMM ones – have never been taught how to cooperate. It´s a matter beyong binary flatland. I refuse to be binary. I go multinary. --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC) To be honest, civilication has no cooperative rules and only very few practical hints how to cooperate – the knowlegde of the world reduces to the state of the art by WMM: Next, we are going for more free knowledge by structured cooperation – that´s the way the world and WMM as a preliminary precursor of the future might not crumble.
2. Do long-term conbriturors like Aschmidt, Drahreg01, Winternacht, Nemo, and Pizero – and even Lila know what comes after Loss aversion in the end? --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Forget it: No trust. WMF makes announcements and does not deliver in time. --Edward Steintain (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems

1. WMF-Staff and adminsitrators of the chapters are very much alike. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. There are fields of never ending struggle with no sulotion in sight. Lucky the ones who leave in time (compare shunning). I am prepared for change – ready to be a wikipedian premigrant on the run, one of a million. --Edward Steintain (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Be bold does not name the adverse effects of Being bold. The recognition of interests of the one´s who are being bold is often hurt. Wikipedia reviewers as Wikipediators have no will (and no structure) to feed an on-going cooperation. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. WMF has no structured Contributor Complaint Management. WMF has no structured Contributor Relation Management (compare Customer Relation Management (CRM)). WMF lacks of CRM and longs for CRM. Hongkong and San Francisko: The Wiki-idea and others starting with opening frontiers to the future are based organizationaly on structures of the middleages. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Over time problems can pile up so the starting point of a conflict cannot be seen any more. --Edward Steintain (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Nobody wants loss. Failures happen but WMF does not react. (comp. Swiss cheese model (deutsch Schweizer-Käse-Modell)). --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Steps to balance

These are really *great* questions and comments. We are working on the strategy and an update for you sometimes in January and I will incorporate some of these into that update. Much of this is still "on the move" as we shift priorities internally and working through some research. I will also spend some time and give you my thoughts here when I can. -- LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick update on where we stand now, even if it is on a meta level like that all deployment is frozen for the moment, or that there is internal discussion on how to improve discussions with the local communities, and how to better understand their requirements and needs (I think that's the case, but I'm just guessing really) would be very welcome on the main flow page, which according to the page on meta is the page on mediawiki, and according to the page on mediawiki is the page on en.wiki would be very welcome. I've got the feeling good things are happening and the current radio silence is a good thing to normalize things, too long a time might lead some people to believe there is an unpleasant surprise in the works. If that's not the case, and I hope and think it's not, but I've been unpleasantly surprised in the past to keep all options open, keeping everyone posted would help relations IMO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martijn, fair point. We had to push back the strategy consultation and with the fundraiser it has been a very busy time.

The product team has been drafting a version of the "product development and rollout process" and I have been urging this is made available on wikis ASAP. I am requesting this is done in December so people can see and comment.

We are doing massive amount of "catch-up" on fundamentals, things like understanding basic data (unique visitors, referrals, completion rates) -- basics we should have had years ago, but never instrumented for. There is a lot of change internally and I think the perceived silence is a side-effect of this. We are moving towards quarterly reports, so if there is something specific that you suggest we cover in those, let us know. --LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I admit, I don't trust the WMF to correctly interpret data. I actually don't trust just about anyone to correctly interpret data, in any soft-sciences context (hard-science data being... slightly less prone to rampant misinterpretation, though there are always folks pushing an agenda who are willing to give it a try). The "lies, damn lies, and statistics" quote is at least as relevant in the second decade of the third millennium as it's ever been. --Pi zero (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a challenge and a chance to find out how cooperation on a higher level works sufficiently if we (WMM and WMF) are willing to accept diversity and subsidiarity as major components of cooperation: Balance = Gleichgewicht. If indeed a sophisticated supported process of new cooperation will be started it has to be fair otherwise foot-voting will decided. --Edward Steintain (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

1 (one) instant of communication with the communities in over two weeks, that's quite some silence. I really wonder how community input should be believed in, if you decide simply not to communicate with the communities at all. The communities are what matters, the WMF is just the professional organisational entity of the communities. How do you intend to deal with your real bosses in the future? --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 11:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit of a cheap shot IMO. Lila has been communicating here and somewhat on the mailinglists. I don't believe as a ED it's her position to take the lead in communication with the communities; statements from the ED are important in their symbolic value (which I think what's needed right around now), but not in the day to day communications. Listening - and it seems that she's been doing that - is more important IMO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it is less cheap than you think. It might be true that Executive Director not communicating here is not that big of a problem by itself, but doing so after claiming that it is a priority (Special:Diff/10432105) is a bigger problem. If that's how a priority is being handled, what happens to everything else..? Or do you think she claimed that is a priority when it is not really so? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lila. Trying to use the time till January 2015 I suggest a Request for Comment trying to find the best possible question to ask for contributions and developements how to induce a higher level of cooperation. The intension is not to name a solution for new cooperating systems but the right and best possible question to find out what the new WMM- and WMF-cooperation could mean and how to achieve it. I think it´s known that the right question(s) has/have to be asked to get on the track of a promissing solution. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What are the improtant questions for the developement of advanced cooperation? Please let us try to use (what I call and what I have applied above) QIOP (the mediation methode of dynamic facilitation). --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your conceptualization is well taken. Our biggest issue is with scale: at a ration of 200:100,000 or 200:500,000 RfCs are very hard to scale. We are still using a system that worked well in 2005, but in 2014 it is limiting our ability to be inclusive and effective. It would be great to get a system of feedback and contribution that scales better to the size of our user base so we can run many conversations in parallel. I am not sure what it would look like... yet. Ideas welcome. -- LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(quote) I think your conceptualization is well taken. Our biggest issue is with scale: at a ration of 200:100,000 or 200:500,000 RfCs are very hard to scale.(quote-end)

(just teasing) I think your conceptualization is well taken. Our biggest issue being a member of WWM is with scale (WMF:WWM): at a ration of 20:1,000,000 or 20:5,000,000. RfCs are very hard to scale. Nevertheless - some how the wiki-idea has to get input. WMF can pay for global research too – the scent of groups like Contributors, Wikipediators, Readers, and Supporters – seasoned with a pinch of future. Let´s start cooking and fry the onion first (cooperation within the Chapters - subsidiarity). Lila, are you going to ask the Congress of International Non-Govermental Organisations (CE) and some of its experienced members for support? It´s worth a try to get access to the network. Be brave! --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you, please, write down what exactly looks wrong to you about RFCs? Without all this "managerese" like "it is limiting our ability to be inclusive and effective" that seems to be mostly meaningless?

Unfortunately, if it is not really meaningless, it reads a bit too much like "We use RFCs and keep getting the answers we do not like. What can we change about that?"... I hope you do understand why even misleading hints of such attitude are not generally adored...

Also, how many RFCs have you actually read? There are different kinds of RFCs. Some are simply discussions, some are mostly votes.

Finally, concerning scale. Let's say every reader of Wikipedia will write a word. Just a word, not a sentence. Even that would be a lot to read. Would you read it? If the answer is "No.", forget about it and be happy that RFCs have less participants. Also, why would the readers participate? What will motivate them? I am pretty sure that should be enough to shut down the most ambitious ideas about changing ways of communication. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• @LilaTretikov (WMF): I'm a bit confused about what you actually mean: in "a ratio of 200:100,000", I guess by "200" you mean the number of people contributing to one of the larger RFCs, but what's the 100,000? The number of users who would have something interesting to say if we knew how to ask them? What system has a problem with the size of the user base? And by users, do you mean readers or editors? Are there not millions of conversations running in parallel on all the projects right now?
  I'd be happy to try coming up with one or the other idea, but for the qestion at hand here, my best answer would be "42" ;-) — HHHIPPO 23:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please compare Questions, Nr. 4. --Edward Steintain (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The turnout of the German RFC on the superprotect flag was actually 800... ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, You must weight the ratio. The action of one can have the weight of 100.000. On the other side, 800 is only the number of the complete active community on de:wp with more than 100 edits/month, a "few hundred", which have the weight of zero, because they have to be changed anyway. The only thing, that will surely never change, is that kind of thinking here. --Magiers (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia on stage: „The Play of History“. Please support the developement of cooperation and tolerance naming existing on-wiki links of seeds to grow. That is what wikipedia will be tomorrow. Try to keep me to be a member of the WMM. WMF and WMM have to work very hard to convince me of not to I Don't Play any more:ϟ (as many did before). Cooperation and tolerance of wikipedia is unstructured; this is wikipedia as an organization loosing (z. B. mich (engl. me)). --Edward Steintain (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In fakt one possibility to get out of a dilemma is DON'T PLAY (Gordon Tullock, Adam Smith and the Prisoners' Dilemma, 1985) Wikipedia has quite some experience with. Albert O. Hirschman calls it Exit, (1970) --Edward Steintain (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Lila´s team is kindly asked to prevent automatic (bot) archival of the given thread and apply „Do not archive until ...“ which could be February 14th, 2015 – Valentine's Day.

There were many outstanding proposals and profound complaints on Lila's talk page which pointed towards a new possible direction for WMM and WMF. I have tried to condence very many useful comments and your honest feelings as a contributer written so often and sometimes saying: This is not right:ϟ . Everybody has a right to say NO:ϟ (and mark it when and where ever you want. This can be counted on the internet (or YES! or I don't know?) and could give useful impulses. – I have introduced my suggestions to take steps towards future which are only a tiny part of the rightous interests of millions partcipating as an international community of individual volunteers (iCIV).

This is Wikipedia with a potentionally brilliant outlook providing free knowledge with an advanced level of Cooperation and Tolerance. We are talking about software which is only the organizational hardware of WMM and WMF in working together. This Hardware and WP-structure are perfect excisting hard-skills to develope new soft-skills like cooperation and tolerance, I am suggesting to the Wikimedia Movement (WMM) and Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Have fun to consider it or discussing it and get hopeful. Loving seasonal greetings. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary with an open end: The wiki-idea is part of future

Working together of Wikipedia Movement (WMM) and Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is a principle of cooperation once we know about. Cooperation is useful to develope the wiki-idea which is young and has only started. Some following steps will follow. They shall be:

• WMF will deliver! --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Newikis:Policies and guidelines will be updated to emphazies cooperation and tolerance whose understanding WMM will develope in coordination with WMF. --Edward Steintain (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• The Mould (Mold) of Wiki will get a new shape. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Competition by Cooperation. Step by Step. --Edward Steintain (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Shaping a new Mould: WMM and WMF represent the ancient virtue of Prudence. A next organized step of the four cardinal virtues shall be Justice acquired by something like Community organization. Does the knowledge of Wikipedia need conflicts with unsolved Elitarian Gewix while basic problems of mankind are not solved? If I ask my neighours they the No:ϟ -- Edward Steintain (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• ...

Good Luck, --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC) What shall we discuss about in 2016 or one year later after finishing this job of cooperation and tolerance?

Self-efficacy (WMM)

Self-esteem is a part freedom (Mill). What is the WMF-understanding of (percieved) Self-efficacy – which could lead to cooperation? --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

31 – 31 devided by 3 is the Conflict of All Problems. (comp. Adiaphora) --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

WMF has to coordinate (matching working together) two moral precepts: Guardian Syndrome and Commerce Syndrome (Systems of Survival by Jane Jacobs to serve the perceived self-efficacy of each individual (diversity of iCIV / WMM). This might be a basic rule for cooperation and tolerance in the Charter of WMM. --Edward Steintain (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Once this was called Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, I suggest as a topic to be discussed in Charter of WMM. --Edward Steintain (talk)

I think you bring up some great points above Edward and I share a lot of your sentiments about the decline of Wiki culture and the distrust of the WMF and their failure to do anything about these problems. They occassionally comment and tell people what they think they want to hear like "we look forward to working with the community" or "we are working on that" but its really just smoke. They make almost zero effort to work with the community and instead only talk to lie minded people who want to work for the WMF and don't want to change anything while dismissing things they don't want to talk about. Admin abuse is a huge problem and so are retention, bullying and an increase in drama. Even the comments here from Lila are unfortunately more along the lines of I her ya, here is a comment to make you feel better and back to what I was doing. Reguyla (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reguyla, you probably meant "like minded" rather than "lie minded". A Freudian slip, perhaps? Unless it wasn't a slip.

In fairness, some members of the community may have placed unrealistic hopes in Lila being a force for change in the WMF. She's a newcomer carefully selected by, ultimately, the people responsible for the current problem policies of the Foundation. I did listen to her Wikimania address; my quick summary of it: (1) the non-Wikipedian sister projects are to be ignored by the Foundation; (2) the Foundation must be innovative; and (3) innovation by the Foundation means doing more of the same things they've been doing for years.

Part of the difficulty with the whole "innovation" thing is that the Foundation seems not to have realized the wikimedian sisterhood of projects are inherently innovative, because of the features of those projects that the Foundation is working most vigorously to undo. The idea of serious information-providing driven by the general population is just so radical it can't easily be grokked by the sort of people naturally attracted to a centralized organization like the Foundation. All the biggest and most (to be blunt) counterproductive initiatives by the Foundation have been about centralizing control and power, which is exactly why they've been counterproductive. --Pi zero (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, your absolutely correct I did mean to say like minded. That was a typo and I apologize for incorrect inferences. I also agree that Lila is unlikely to change much and I also agree that the WMF is neither innovative nor are they eager to hear about anything that would disturb the status quo. I also agree that a lot of focus seems to be on the WMF exerting control in areas they shouldn't while avoiding completely areas they should. The superprotect initiative is a prime example as are the centralization of accounts which are angering people cross wiki. Why should someone have to abandon an account name they have used for years because a blocked vandal copies it and Joe Jobbed them on another. Someone with 200, 000 edits should not have to cater to some vandal who did 10 edits and was blocked. That is the ultimate reward for a vandal or sockmaster, to exert that type of change on someone they don't like. Now I am generally supportive of the centralized account, but because the WMF waited so long to do it, its creating just as many, if not more problems, than its fixing. There are literally dozens of examples where the WMF should be doing stuff and doesn't want too or where they are doing stuff the community doesn't want or need. Unfortunately at the end of the day it seems like Lila is more of a pretty face to put in front of the organization than someone in control of it. Reguyla (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi all -- I think you may have misunderstood me re: innovation. I did say that WMF needs to be innovative, but I did not mean that all innovation should come from the WMF. In fact, I believe most innovative projects came out -- and will continue to come -- from the community. What we need to do at the WMF is to better spot and support those, including providing guidance around how to scale them. Traditionally we have indeed ignored everything but Wikipedia and I believe we could have amplified both Wikipedia and other key projects (ex. Dictionary, Data, Source) if we better integrated our thinking. Knowledge comes in many forms. To you point re: doing things we need to do -- part of the issue is actually hearing those things. The new Community Engagement team is working to set up ways to hear what our communities need and respond to those needs. I expect the "response team" will be put together in the ~90 days. Finally, change takes time, especially at our history and scale. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That's great news. But with respect the old team "heard" the community too, they just chose to either ignore what the community was saying or didn't ask for the communities input in areas where they felt some discussion could lead to not doing what they wanted to do. So IMO what we need is not a group who's job it is to "hear" the community, they should be actively working with the community. There are a lot of smart and helpful people in the projects and I believe if the WMF is willing to work with them rather than at them the results would be so much better. Also, the WMF is fragmented so just hearing the community isn't going to be of much use unless the other sections of the WMF are engaged as well. If the technical section just does whatever they want, as they have in the past without regard to the communities input then there is no reason to setup the community engagement team in the first place. Its just paving a cowpath and won't change anything other than add another layer of bureaucracy to an already over complicated process. There needs to be a way of tracking the discussions and the solutions as noted above. There needs to be a hierarchy of checks and balances rather than the system currently in place where a few on one project can abusively do whatever they want and claim a consensus. Reguyla (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, after reading this about Erik Mohler resigning I feel like Lila may actually be doing some good. I know a lot of people like him and Jorm, but both really were doing more to hold the project back than to move it forward and I personally think this will be a massive improvement for the WMF. Of course time will tell depending on who the replacement is because sometimes its better to stick with the devil you know, but this has the earmarks of being an improvement. So I retract at least part of my statement about Lila not appearing to do much from a leadership standpoint. Of course there are several others that I think should go as well, but this is a good start. Reguyla (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lila, it does seem you may be looking in some helpful directions, but I suspect (also, am concerned) you may be overestimating how new your approach is, and underestimating the scope of problems with Foundation strategy. It is of course hard for us to tell what's really going on behind the scenes until-and-unless it has visible results (at which point if misdirected it may be too late to do anything about). I observe that the call to action thing is disturbingly central-control-oriented; there's nothing in it to suggest any real change in direction, rather it appears to favor continuing to make various mistakes the Foundation has made in recent years. I'm slowly coming to appreciate (guess I'm just slow) that the Foundation itself is a single point of failure for the sisterhood. For wikis, which by their nature should be as distributed as possible, SPOFs do occur but one should look for some way to amend infrastructure to eliminate them. How that could be done in this case, so far I don't know. --Pi zero (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Community Engagement (Product)/Product Surveys

Please ask your staff to report on why this project has stalled, and to apologise to the volunteers whose time has been wasted. 86.187.95.94 05:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Rachel diCerbo (WMF) to relay this question from the IP. Thanks! --Pine^✉ 07:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This question was answered last month. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF) the page that you linked is blank... --Pine^✉ 20:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I've fixed the link. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pine - thank you so much for the ping and thank you to Whatamidoing (WMF) for the fast follow up. :) Unfortunately we cannot ping the IP to respond, so hopefully they'll follow up to read the response. The good news is that with the Call to Action, the announcement of the Community Tech Team, and pending additions to Community Liaisons team specifically to support conversations around this and TBD additional product surveys, things are moving into place to act on the results. I'll cross post this over there as well. Cheers, Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually this project has not stalled, it is under review as part of some of our recent changes. It did not have an expected outcome and a timeline (which projects should have). In interim we have changed how we are organized to make sure we are able to address community issues broadly from both engineering and community perspectives [2]. We are investigating how to best collect input and prioritize the work of the new team and this project will become part of this effort now. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

On the workload of your staff

A common theme emerging from some of the responses by your staff to questions directed to you here is that they have been unable to make progress on various initiatives because they have been too busy on other things. If so, then something is badly wrong with the workload within the WMF. You have over two hundred staff, and they claim that they are being given work at a rate which not only absorbs all the time originally allocated to the progress of those initiatives, but even makes it impossible for them to spend as little as a few minutes every few months (that's one millionth of the total WMF workforce time) sending out a message to the volunteers and other workers on these initiatives explaining and apologising for being unable to make any progress. This is indeed a deplorable state of affairs -- please investigate it further. 64.134.240.253 10:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We are indeed working to make our time allocated the best way possible. We have incredible people working hard to deliver on our commitments. Some may take more work as we uncover issues in the process. Even though it seems like we are large, ~200 people supporting ~100,000 people community supporting ~500,000,000 people site is actually an incredibly efficient ratio and would be hard to match by any similar site. Nonetheless point is taken. Thank you. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Motto Luigi (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Stable Wikipedia

See my suggestion here. I know Anthony Cole has discussed it with you, and even visited San Francisco. I support his idea for medicine, I would like to propose something similar for my own area of specialism (philosophy). Could WMF support an initiative for minor changes to Wikipedia infrastructure, such as links to a stable version? Peter Damian (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter, Lila's restructure of the engineering department [3] includes the creation of a new Community Tech team, whose role appears to be to make the kinds of features you describe - assuming there is support from a significant number of core contributors - and I think you should be confident of getting that support. It certainly has mine. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, thank you for pointing out the new structure. We are definitely looking to support community-driven requests (bugs, bots and new features). The CL team (Community Liaisons) will be helping the Community Tech team manage the backlog of requests and coordinate with the community. We are working to put together a method for collecting and understanding those. We are looking to understand which ideas have broad support within their communities and address those first. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Flow

On March 18, you said we have paused any but requested rollouts of Flow, but we have not resolved yet how the mission might be changed -- hence the page has not changed yet. The discussion then aged off without further news. Can you yet predict when you might be able to make that resolution? Until then, please have the staff working on Flow clarify what, if anything, it would be useful for the community to do. What are these "requested rollouts", who is requesting them, and where are the requests being collated? 206.217.75.141 20:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Lila, I asked you to clarify the situation and you told me you "paused any but requested rollouts of Flow". Yesterday Quiddity (WMF) announced at wikipedia:Wikipedia_talk:Flow#Using_Flow_on_this_page that he plans a new deployment of Flow later TODAY. As far as I'm aware there has not been any Community Consensus requesting it. Not only that, but he's planning to do it on the exact page with 14-archives worth of people objecting to flow (and WMF-Staff brickwall promoting it). Alsee (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarfiy, there cannot be any legitimate reason to make this change because not only is there no community request, which you said there would have to be, there is already a test page on enwiki. Have you unpaused Flow? If that were the case, not telling us has been a serious failing on your part. BethNaught (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lila, the response of User:DannyH (WMF) at that page ("we should have asked before saying we were going to change this page" [4]) is quite incompatible with your message ("we have paused any but requested rollouts of Flow") and this suggests that you have not succeeded in conveying your instructions to all your staff. No doubt you will address that issue.

More importantly, is there any point in continuing to allocate staff or community time and effort to the Flow project? Even after radical reduction in scope it is clear that it has in fact failed. Motto Luigi (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Things seem to be fine there now, a well-intentioned 1-page deployment that doesn't seem to be going forward. However I'm still extremely concerned about the continued active development of Flow without any resolution on whether the work is even going in a viable direction. Lila, it seems that either the project is on a stealth-mode track to presumed deployment (in conflict with everything you've said in previous discussions), or the WMF is spending money on work that it knows may be wasted in the wrong direction. As I suggested on the Flow talk page, I really wish the WMF would post an RfC at village pump asking if the project is going in a viable direction. Get some valuable input from the general community that aren't lurking these pages. Creating Superprotect to ram through Media Viewer resulted in at least a half dozen tech-news stories all vilifying the WMF, across multiple languages and continents. If Community consensus is that Flow is harmful, then trying to forcibly deploy it could lead us into a CNN level shitstorm. Alsee (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Flow project page claims that the project "will identify the critical workflows that need to be supported with software and build lightweight support for those processes". It will not build that support, because it has taken no steps to identity the crticial workflows, and has designed the software without any idea what these critical workflows are. There is thus no realistic possibility of it succeeding. Lila, why did you allow the project to continue consuming resources while you decided whether or not to terminate it -- would it not have been more sensible to suspend it and redeploy the staff onto other equally necessary tasks (some of which have already been mentioned here recently)? If the decision is to terminate, then the resources are saved: but Flow is hardly time-critical (if it were, you would be in a lot of trouble by now), so any delay caused by the suspension would be of little importance. And when do you expect to make that decision? Will you consult the community first, and if so, when and how? Motto Luigi (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer engagement

Lila, looking more widely at other issues raised in preceding sections, you may want to consider how much volunteer time and effort has been and is being wasted while your staff fail to engage effectively with the rest of the community. Even while your "call to action" is being fleshed out in detail, your staff continue to alienate the very people you should be seeking to bring on board with the huge changes that will be needed to get WMF and its projects through the next few years. Motto Luigi (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to change things any faster than I already have, but that is not as simple as it may seem. What are you specifically referring to? And where? LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The projects referred to at User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)/Archive 7#Community Engagement (Product)/Process ideas, User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)/Archive 7#Access to nonpublic information policy, User_talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)#Community Engagement (Product)/Product_Surveys, User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)/Archive 7#Flow and User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)#Flow have consumed considerable amounts of volunteer time and effort to no purpose, and that discussed at #Gather / Collections is likely to do so. It seems likely that almost all of that time and effort has been wasted, and that represents a failure of community engagement that you cannot afford at the present juncture. Perhaps you do not see it as wasted, or think that it is as an unavoidable price worth paying? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You can see process is changing in action with VE (example are the weekly triage sessions and public prioritization), but not yet with some other features as these changes take time. There was a product survey test for gadgets in december and the new Community team is ramping up to begin building priority lists and ultimately executing on them. Proactive Flow rollouts were suspended last fall until we are clear on success criteria and meanwhile the tiny team of 3 refocused on modularizing components and APIs so we can reuse work done and reorganize as needed. I still don't have the use cases I wanted to review for Flow and ultimately the team needs the capabilities to make better determinations themselves, but those are coming. At the end we are going to use data and user testing to tell us if a change is positive or negative (do more people create content? is that content quality? etc...) Would be great to have community collect those for Talk pages or for any other way to have a conversation around editing. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond about Flow in a separate section.

What works great:

1. Bug fixes.
2. Requests for improvements to active projects. (Adding bells and whistles features)
3. Anything behind-the-scenes like HHVM. The WMF is effectively the customer writing software specifications for yourself.

What doesn't work:

1. No communication *before* starting code for outward-facing projects. This is Russian Roulette. When there are issues that staff weren't aware of, the Community doesn't get this pain-free opportunity to point them out. The WMF builds the project first, sinking a time&money investment into it.
2. Once the project is built, with no Community input, it becomes the assigned job of staff to get that project to the predetermined destination. Bug-fixes are in-scope for their job, adding bells and whistles features are in-scope for their job, but cancelling or fundamentally changing direction are out-of-scope. Even the idea that the WMF&Community could discuss whether the project should continue is out-of-scope for discussion. All attempts to discuss the issue get ignored. All we get is "lets talk about bugfixes and upgrades instead".
   • The longer ineffectual discussions drag on the more upset the community becomes at being ignored, while development barrels forwards.
   • The longer ineffectual discussions drag on the deeper WMF investment becomes.
   • When the Community gives up on discussions and finally takes action, the WMF feels aggrieved at the Community "jumping in at the last minute" sabotaging a long running deeply invested project. To the WMF, the community looks like an irresponsible angry mob trashing your hard work and flushing money down the drain. Why oh why didn't the community raise these issues sooner?

Looking at the current case, I don't know what the Community will do about Gather but I see at least a possibility of bot-nuking all Collections. I'm trying to get effective engagement before that point. I'd like at least one person at the WMF to notice that there's an informal consensus saying hell-no. I'd like at least one person at the WMF to care why the Community has a problem with it. I'd like the WMF&Community to discuss whether the Community should do the maintenance work required by this project. I'd like the WMF to recognize that the right answer might be "no", and that cancelling the project is an in-scope possibility. Alsee (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Alsee, I am very happy that you are trying to get more "effective engagement" as you describe it. Lets set Gather Collections aside, and from the effective engagement perspective, you may want to help us all define, how do we want the workflow of this type of content to be like? As mentioned many times earlier, Gather can be disabled, however, the earlier community request of public watchlists should happen at some point. What are we going do about those public lists of articles, collected and labeled by one user? This is not an attempt to change the subject, on the contrary, this is an attempt to look beyond a beta feature. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out on this page before, there is currently no effective mechanism for the community to engage constructively with the 265 staff of the WMF on setting strategic goals or designing requested features, and previous attempts to develop them have stalled or failed. So these questions cannot be usefully answered at present. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

LilaTretikov (WMF), Melamrawy (WMF), Gather can be disabled - I beg you, I beg you, I beg you, please tell me what process would be required for that?

If there were a Formal Central Community Consensus request, issued by RFC at Village Pump, would the WMF either disable Gather or set all Collections private? The WMF is warmly welcome to participate in that discussion and present reasons supporting Gather and supporting keeping collections public. I proposed this general type of discussion three times before, and got no response on it. Regarding the rest, I'll reply soon at Gather/Moderation_Criteria.Alsee (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Lila, thank you for your prompt response, but I have to say it was a little underwhelming. I was hopng for definite proposals, clear commitment and an explicit timeline. I do not think you have the luxury of allowing the discrepancy between the WMF view and the community, as clearly expressed in the comment above, for example, to drift wider. Might I suggest, incidentally, that merely tinkering with processes will be insufficient. There needs to be a shift of attitude on the part of WMF staff towards a real appetite for engagement: in the past we have seen too much argument and not enough disussion -- and to be blunt more than a hint of condecension, even contempt, from staff towards mere volunteers. That has to change for anything else to have a chance of working. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Flow misunderstanding

Lila, I'll put this as generously as possible..... it seems that your previous comments on flow were seriously misunderstood by everyone following this topic. It seems there was no stop to actually reconsider Flow. It seems that WMF doesn't care whether the Community considers Flow to be a beneficial or even viable transition. It seems only change is an internal redrafting how many bells and whistles to hang on the Flow-train before it is "finished".

I'm curious, is this primarily an assumption that the Community will change it's view once they see how fantastic the finished product will be? Or do you expect it will be a manageable bump in the road to force out Flow even if there is strong Community rejection? Alsee (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gather / Collections

Recently the WMF announced an experimental project Gather to the community. The project page well illustrates the expected use case for this feature, non-editors can create and share lists of their favorite bands. People can also make abusive lists labeling politicians-they-hate as rapists. The WMF posted the project to Administrators'_noticeboard#Extension:Gather_launching_on_beta. Reception was extremely unfavorable.

The Gather FAQ declares "The community is responsible for creating moderation rules for the created lists".

Gather/Moderation_Criteria proposes a WORKFLOW for the community.

Later, the WMF again posted it at Administrators'_noticeboard#Moderation_of_Collections? Participation and opposition expanded with the more thorough discussion. A number of people were clearly offended at the WMF presuming to impose a WORKFLOW on the community after ignoring our initial objection.

To try and put the issue in a nutshell: It's not what we do. Editors show up to contribute serious and valuable content belonging to the project, serious and valuable content belonging to the world. We're willing to volunteer various sorts of drudge-labor to protect and serve that work. We're not interested in being a free-labor-force to review and police social-network-junk belonging to individuals. This sort of content is forbidden by our Policies. It's a disruptive distraction from the work we do. Our Policies is to delete that sort of content.

The Developer participated in the discussions, and in this edit he accurately summarized the discussion results: Given the sentiments and positions expressed (Alsee's option#3 seems to be the winner). In his edit summary he thanked everyone for sharing and agreed to the proposal that users seemed to agree on. To clarify:

• (Rejected) "Alsee option#2" was that the Community develop an acceptability policy for collections and devote editor-time to policing them.

• "Alsee option#3" was "We could accept this as a WMF project and exempt such pages from our policies and Community management, and let the WMF take on all of the work of policing them."

While the project developer ostensibly agreed that editors were not going to do this work, edits to the project page and elsewhere made it clear he still intended to go forwards with the project and still expected to use editors as a labor force to police it.

While I agree with the general Community view on this, my primary motive is for improved WMF-Community partnership. The WMF-Community relationship is far more important than any individual project. It would really help if we could catch these sorts of issues before coding starts, but that's moot here. The project FAQ says the Community is "responsible" for creating an acceptable use policy for it. That requires an RfC. Three times I invited the Liaison or Project Developer to work together with us to set up a formal discussion to resolve that, and eagerly offered my help. Three times I got responses amounting to nope nope nope. The possibilities I see are:

• If this "experimental" project wraps up, issue resolved.
• If Collections are all set to "private" then there's no need to review them for abuse. Issue solved.
• If the WMF staff want to take on the work of reviewing and policing abusive collections, issue solved. (I don't consider this likely.)
• If public collections remain, then a Community RfC is necessary to address moderation policy for them. If someone from the WMF participates they can best present their positive points for it.

• If the Community decides to make an acceptable-collections policy, and accepts the work of policing them, issue solved. (Based on previous discussions this seems unlikely.)
• If the Community decides it has no interest in doing this work, and doesn't make an acceptable-collections policy, then I doubt the community is going to let threatening or other abusive content just sit there. The only alternative I can think of, in the absence of an acceptable-collections policy, would be that collections would simply be hidden or deleted without review. I suspect a bot-operator may be solicited to automate this mindless busywork. This would be a pointlessly ugly variation of the WMF simply setting all collections to private.

I wanted to give you a chance to comment, before starting the above RFC without WMF participation. Alsee (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Some time last year, various projects, aimed at improving the WMF's knowledge of what the community wants and needs, stall or fail for reasons described elsewhere on this page, and shortly afterwards this new project is announced which the community neither wants nor needs. Lila, does this indicate a fundamental disconnect somewhere? I hope this is exactly the sort of thing that your call to action will fix in future. Motto Luigi (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

hmmm, this argument is a bit disappointing Alsee :/. We have been talking about this feature for a month. We have gave heads up a week before a beta launch. The discussion never stopped, while the feature itself is still in development to make the best use of it. As discussed here the concept of grouping articles and labelling them already exists in books maintained by users, and the long requested wishlist features of watchlists also represents the same type of content, even if the functionality is different, as discussed with Risker. There is no point of discussing collections separately from discussing the community requested watchlist feature, and the already existing book feature. There is also absolutely no point in discussing things on Lila's talk page, while other communication channels are open and active. Again, I am disappointed to read /starting the above RFC without WMF participation/ while we haven't done anything without enough transparency or conversation with the community, at least in this beta feature. :/ Thanks!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Melamrawy (WMF) needs to recall that this is Lila's talk page and is where Lila, as executive director, is able to discuss with the community the strategy of the organsation she leads, and the coherence and competence of the various groups within that organisation for which she is ultimately responsible. There is no other venue appropriate for such discussions and we appreciate the way in which Lila gives them and us her time and attention. It is not a forum in which her staff issue gratuitous rebukes to volunteers who are raising concerns with her over strategic or executive matters nor is it for staff to attempt to dismiss, deride or denigrate volunteers' concerns or comments. If and when Lila no longer wishes to discuss those matters here, or with the volunteer community, or members thereof, I am sure that she will say so directly herself, rather than leaving it to a part-time consultant to argue with volunteer contributors who come here to raise issues in good faith. Lila, may we assume that you continue to wish to engage in constructive discussions with the community on this page with regard to matters of strategy, leadership and organisational coherence, competence and direction? 188.29.113.133 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP address, the topic Alsee mentioned is already active in discussion. I am concerned that taking the conversation into another channel, doesn't involve the other voices that also contributed to the conversation. Everybody can talk to Lila on her talk page, of course, but if we are discussing a product that already had its communication channels, then how does it help the community to decide collaboratively, if we are moving any existing discussion here?--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Melamrawy (WMF): Purely as a practical matter, when looking at this section it seems clear you're incorrect in your use of the word "enough", when you say "we haven't done anything without enough transparency or conversation with the community". If there is some internal adminstrative definition of "enough" that makes the statement true, then that definition of "enough" is not adequate in practice. And that is an appropriate concern to raise on Lila's user talk rather than on a page whose insufficiency for the purpose is part of the concern. --Pi zero (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Melamrawy (WMF): You continue to confuse discussions about the design and implemenation of a particular feature, which are most effective if centralised at a venue which is not this page, with discussions between the community and the ED about the strategic relationship of one project to the other projects of the WMF and its implications for the communcations and relationship between the WMF and the volunteer community, which clearly belong on this page. Please cease your repeated attempts, which are quite inappropriate coming from a member of WMF staff, to discourage the community from continuing the latter class of discussions with Lila. 92.41.113.7 06:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on commenting here except that my name was mentioned. There are several challenges with the "Gather" extension: its function is nearly identical to the "Collection" extension, but instead of improving the latter (yes, the code was messy, but code cleanup is one of the main reasons the WMF pays developers) a whole new extension was created, complete with lead images; it saves in the "Special" namespace instead of user namespace, although the "gather" is supposedly user-specific; it purports to be related to watchlists, but bears no resemblance to them, and doesn't include any particular features related to the watchlist wishlist (including the fact that the selected articles don't go onto a user's watchlist); and it requires major workarounds - in part because it is saving to the "Special" namespace - to permit any kind of routine content curation, such as deletion, suppression, revision-deletion, and editing. (Anything that is publicly viewable has to be able to be curated by community members.) I don't have huge issues with the core theory behind this new extension, except that because it nearly duplicates an existing extension that was already suffering from a near-complete lack of attention, the likelihood that this too will fall by the wayside is quite high. I'm not persuaded that there's a lot of benefit in raising this on Lila's talk page; if there is a strong desire to move it up the ladder, it would have been a bit more logical to escalate it to Damon Sicore (WMF) first; I do note, however, that Damon has yet to create a userpage on Meta or Mediawikiwiki yet, though. Risker (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to talk to Lila on her talk page, especially with strategic relationship matters, however, I am not sure why do we need to move an existing conversation that includes implementation details on Lila's talk page. On side note and for accuracy's sake, the person Alsee referred to as a developer is the product manager of the feature. In fact, there is indeed a missing conversation that needs to start on WP, about how should his type of content be curated: A group of articles, collected by a user, and are given a title and made public (which is already the case with the existing user maintained books). Gather could be disabled, but the same conversation will be repeated when the requested watchlists functionalities are implemented. Sigh, and now I am myself now going into the inevitable implementation details, which don't ideally belong here :)--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your discussion link only links to one lonely WP-project, thousands are missing. I can't see any interwiki-link to any other WP in the article of that discussion, in other words: outside the one project enWP there is no discussion, thus there is no community involvement. Please show me the other discussion pages in at least the top-10 wikiverse projects. (and no, a mailing list is definitely no proper place for discussion, as is phabricator, those are in-group off-public talking venues) ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 11:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would there be 10 discussions in other projects, if it is only beta enabled on English Wikipedia? There was an earlier discussion around the extension on mediawiki, and this is where the FAQ stemmed from.  :)--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing that Lila may want to look into. How does it happen that a project of this kind starts up within WMF with no consultation with the volunteer contributor community, and where the originators believe that it is sufficient, after much of the work has already been done, to bring it to the attention of a subset of the users at whom it is supposedly aimed? Why was the requirement, if any, not captured before sinking time, effort and money, and why was the requirements capture process not carried out across a range of users consistent with the likely user population? Why were the processes apparently being developed to capture requirements not brought into use before decisions were made? 94.196.255.66 16:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Lila may also wish to be informed on how it came about that the design process for this product failed to assess the extra workload likely to be placed on the volunteer community by the necessity of curating this new feature, and why no steps were taken to ensure that that extra work would be forthcoming. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Winter

Lila, may we assume that Winter is now defunct? Perhaps you would have someone clarify its status. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There was an announcement a while back that Winter was over....err, so to speak. Of course that could change but for now at least its been shelved to focus on other issued deemed to be more important. Personally I hope they do finish it because I thought it was a great idea and had a lot of potential. Much more so than some of the other initiatives that went through. Reguyla (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia reader interface update

Hi Lila,

The Signpost had this rather chilling summary of a recent ITM item, which I will abbreviate here:

"Time profiles (April 14) Lila Tretikov, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Time paints a grim picture of the challenges faced by Tretikov and the encyclopedia, many of which were discussed in a recent Signpost's special report: a "meager annual budget", the gender gap, "critical gaps in coverage" (such as the Global South), the shrinking ranks of active editors, and the lack of contributions from those who access Wikipedia content through mobile devices, search engines, and personal digital assistants. Time speculates that Wikipedia could contract suddenly, with something similar to the almost 25% dropoff in active editors on the Italian Wikipedia in 2013, or dwindle gradually, a possibility that Andrew Lih (Fuzheado) compared to "the boiling frogs scenario". William Beutler (WWB), author of the blog The Wikipedian, told Time "I do not envy Lila Tretikov’s position."

"Time outlined efforts by Tretikov and the WMF to address these issues, such as the Inspire Campaign and Wikipedia Zero. Time wrote that "Tretikov is focusing the Foundation’s limited resources on how readers and editors use the site," including gathering data about user preferences, increasing the number of WMF engineers, and improving and creating editing software like mobile apps."

I realize that the strategy update is likely intended to address many of the problems in this summary.

IMO, one project that the WMF could undertake that would be helpful would be a major interface update to the reader experience, similar to WikiWand, that would be compatible with VisualEditor for the cases where readers convert into editors. The Mobile Apps team is moving in that direction. Could the same be done for desktop? A cost of $600,000 would be less than the cost of MediaViewer, and if done well could have good results. Another option might be for WMF simply to acquire WikiWand outright, and I think that would be an option worth exploring.

Thanks, --Pine^✉ 04:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)