User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Fhocutt (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 1 February 2016 (→‎Employee communications: reply). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Fhocutt in topic Employee communications

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

edit  

Knowledge Engine grant

Some background on the Knowledge Engine grant

Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments12 people in discussion

Hi Everyone,

As some of you know, I have been making concerted efforts to engage deeper on-wikis and to provide more insights into my thought process. As a demonstration of this commitment, I would like to share my thoughts on the Knight Foundation grant which has been called out for clarification.

What are the new WMF initiatives which this grant supported?

The text (after the bullet points) below is from the actual grant paperwork, and is duplicated a bit further down. Here I’d just like to highlight the functional areas of our WMF strategy which these initiatives touch.

Reach:

  • Test results from search and user testing
  • An improved search engine and API for Wikipedia searches
  • Measure user satisfaction (by analyzing rate at which queries surface relevant content)
  • Can the Wikimedia Foundation get Wikipedia embedded via carriers and Original Equipment Manufacturers?

Community:

  • A public-facing dashboard of core metrics used in product development
  • A sample prototype on a small dataset to showcase possibilities
  • Create a public-facing dashboard of key KPIs
  • Use Key Performance (KPIs) to inform product iteration, and establish key understanding and feature development for the prototypes
  • Measure application Programming Interface (API) usage

Knowledge:

  • Test results exploring relevance of content surfaced
  • Measure no results rate

Knowledge + Reach:

  • Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?

Reach + Community:

  • Conduct tests with potential users
  • Measure user-perceived load time

Why didn’t you discuss these ideas with the community sooner?

It was my mistake to not initiate this ideation on-wiki. Quite honestly, I really wish I could start this discussion over in a more collaborative way, knowing what I know today. Of course, that’s retrospecting with a firmer understanding of what the ideas are, and what is worthy of actually discussing. In the staff June Metrics meeting in 2015, the ideation was beginning to form in my mind from what I was learning through various conversations with staff. I had begun visualizing open knowledge existing in the shape of a universe. I saw the Wikimedia movement as the most motivated and sincere group of beings, united in their mission to build a rocket to explore Universal Free Knowledge. The words “search” and “discovery” and “knowledge” swam around in my mind with some rocket to navigate it. However, “rocket” didn’t seem to work, but in my mind, the rocket was really just an engine, or a portal, a TARDIS, that transports people on their journey through Universal Free Knowledge.

From the perspective I had in June, however, I was unprepared for the impact uttering the words “Knowledge Engine” would have. Can we all just take a moment and mercifully admit: it’s a catchy name. Perhaps not a great one or entirely appropriate in our context (hence we don’t use it any more). I was motivated. I didn’t yet know exactly what we needed to build, or how we would end up building it. I could’ve really used your insight and guidance to help shape the ideas, and model the improvements, and test and verify the impacts.

However, I was too afraid of engaging the community early on.

Why do you think that was?

I have a few thoughts, and would like to share them with you separately, as a wider topic. Either way, this was a mistake I have learned enormously from.

Was the $250,000 Knowledge Engine grant a restricted grant?

Yes. Let's talk about restricted grants and the WMF. The Foundation has taken restricted grants in the past, per our policy, especially when we were a much younger organization. As our most recent audit report shows, we have received restricted grants more recently for Visual Editor and Wikipedia Zero and Mobile (in 2014-15). With this grant we brought the idea to the funder and they supported our work with this grant. To be clear, this is not an instance of a funder driving WMF's agenda. They provided financial support to the plans we presented to them.

I’d like to take this moment to call out the requirement for Board of Trustees approval for 1) grants over $100,000 2) grants which do not conform to Foundation policies, and 3) grants which create financially instability for the Foundation. The Knowledge Engine grant was unanimously approved by the WMF Board of Trustees. All members voted and approved (see minutes) the grant on November 7th. The motion was made by James, and seconded by Denny.

Why did the WMF Board of Trustees vote to accept this grant?

While I cannot speak on behalf of the board, I can share my take: Restricted grants not only benefit budding organizations, but they also aide existing organizations with new initiatives. In the early stages of discovering what would eventually become “Discovery”, we decided to apply for this grant. Our aim was to begin exploring new initiatives that could help address the challenges that Wikipedia is facing, especially as other sources and methods arise for people to acquire knowledge. If you haven’t yet, please have a look at the recent data and metrics which illustrate the downward trajectory our movement faces with readership decline (since 2013), editor decline (since 2007, which we stabilized for English Wikipedia in 2015), and our long standing struggle with conversion from reading to editing. These risks rank very high on my list of priorities, because they threaten the very core of our mission. The time for investigating new approaches at the foundation to address these risks is absolutely now. Thus, the Board approved this grant to help us fund investigating and developing new ways of reaching and serving our readers.

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.

That brings this to a discussion more centered around, why should the community support the decisions of the WMF board and leadership? Well the honest truth is, the community has no obligation at all to support the WMF board. It is very much the other way around, the Foundation is accountable to our readers, contributors, and donors. The Board and the Foundation both act, in their own capacities and to the best of their limited abilities, to further the mission of the movement. Sometimes we get it wrong, sometimes we get it right. But it is entirely up to each individual contributor to decide whether they want to support a given initiative or not.

I’d like to have an open discussion, on a later date, on how values, policies and duty tie into interpersonal relationships and transparency, organizational productivity, technological innovation and long term relevancy of our movement and our projets.

Some reading refresh I did for this discussion:

Why did the board not publish this grant paperwork?

Generally we do not post donor documents without advance agreement, because doing so breaks donor privacy required in maintaining sustainable donor relations. In practice, I am told we have not actually published grant paperwork since 2010, but we do publicize grants in blogs when requested and agreed to by donors. A portion of the KF Knowledge Engine grant document that outlines the actual commitments we’ve made I quoted below.

What do we want to investigate that was covered by this grant?

We hypothesize that if we help our users discover more Wikimedia content through search, more users will come to us and perhaps more will engage in editing. Our basic search brings zero results roughly 30% of the time - a problem which, once fixed, extends our reach. We also want to learn if exposing sister-project content and other open sources (like open street maps) through our search interface will help our readers find and read more of our content. At the time we called this concept “Knowledge Engine”. Today, we call this “Discovery” because that is the phase the team is in. The Discovery team is actively working with Wikidata, open maps and APIs; and you can read more about it on the Discovery FAQ page.

What are the expected outcomes of this grant? (quoted text from the grant)

At the conclusion of the first stage, the results will include:

Test results exploring relevance of content surfaced

Test results from search and user testing
An improved search engine and API for Wikipedia searches
A public-facing dashboard of core metrics used in product development
A sample prototype on a small dataset to showcase possibilities

What are the activities this grant supports? (quoted text from the grant)

Answer key questions:

Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?
Can the Wikimedia Foundation get Wikipedia embedded via carriers and Original Equipment Manufacturers?
Use Key Performance (KPIs) to inform product iteration, and establish key understanding and feature development for the prototypes
Conduct tests with potential users
Create a public-facing dashboard of key KPIs
Measure:
User satisfaction (by analyzing rate at which queries surface relevant content)
User-perceived load time
No results rate
Application Programming Interface (API) usage

What is an example of discoveries we made so far?

Portal First A/B/C test report (2 tests ran at the same time) .

With the first test group, we did not find reliable improvement as the delta was between -0.9% and 2.8%. Since it is not consistently positive, it is not reliable. With the second test group, 1.7% to 5.5% more sessions were likely to end in a clickthrough compared to the control. This represents between 300 and 1.3 million more people every day likely to go through to read an article our editors wrote. These people “bounced” from our site before. This is a tangible improvement, and I’d like to thank Discovery for the great work they have been doing.

Please help us shape these ideas and validate them.

Please help provide insight on Discovery team work on the product portal pages. You can read and comment on our tests and help submit ideas in Phabricator. I am confident you can help us with both observations, opinions, ideas and safeguards. Ultimately, we’ve just started the Discovery process, and I’m hoping we can give it a clean start when it comes to ideating together, please don’t bite the newbie. I assume good faith, and I hope you do too. Let’s all treat each other with civility and etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus on the WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content and knowledge our editors are creating.

A fellow humble child of knowledge, LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply


Thanks Lila, that's interesting context. I believe the phrase "knowledge engine" has been used to describe WP or aspects of WM since at least 2014, when it showed up in the annual report. I've heard it used with various other connotations since then, but this seems as good a description as any of a constellation of tools, living reference works, and communications channels devoted to synthesizing and organizing information into usable knowledge. –SJ talk  06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I have a question which I do not see covered above: whose employment is dependent on this restricted grant?
  • I work on that team. The work you report as supported by this grant, is my work. I wrote the dashboards, my team performs the A/B tests. I had no idea that there was a restricted grant covering this work until now. And quite honestly it scares me quite a bit to hear that a one-off donation is the thing resourcing my work - because I feel like my work is valuable to the movement's progress - and my employment, because I like making rent. So that's my question; what specifically is this being spent on? Not, what are the goals of the project, but whose existence is supported by it? And what is going to happen when that grant expires? Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't work at the Wikimedia Foundation as a staff member and so I can't answer anything specific about your employment, but I wanted to comment on the general principle of restricted grants as I see it as a board member. In general, I think it is very unhealthy for most nonprofits to "chase funding" by looking for ideas that funders will like just in order to get funding. I've seen some sad cases of distraction in nonprofits which did that. We don't do that and I would oppose any grant which led us around in that way. (As an aside, grant makers tend to hate it as well.)
So, this work is fundamental and core to our longterm progress. We need to improve the website over time, and we need to modernize and adapt. Discovery on the site isn't very good. Tools for editors to find things aren't very good. We'll want to invest in that whether it is funded by an external grant or not.
Why do some funders prefer to give restricted grants? That should be pretty obvious. They've been engaged in a dialogue about what a nonprofit working on and what they plan to do and they come to a decision to support that. They want to make sure that the money is spent in line with what they were told. The fact that a grant is restricted does not imply - at all - that the work is a whim which will stop when the grant is finished.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
To add toJimmy's point, Discovery work was part of the 2015-16 Annual Plan and was funded regardless of any specific grants. The KF Knowledge Engine grant is an additional validation of our thinking and efforts. While it does not change who works on what, it helps support evolution of our projects not just financially, but from thought leadership perspective from a well-respected grantor. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I simply don't understand what is being said here. Lila, you say that the Wikipedia search engine should be improved. Alright. But what's that got to do with a "vision" of "free knowledge as a universe"? I don't understand even the mere meaning of this phrase. I don't understand what the question means whether "the Wikimedia Foundation can get Wikipedia embedded via carriers and Original Equipment Manufacturers". What does embedding mean here, what do you mean by carriers, which OEMs? You are asking: "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" What's that got to mean? What is "an open channel beyond an encyclopedia"? It all sounds very high-profile, not at all like the rather understandable task of improving a search engine. Isn't it possible to put in clear words what this Knight grant is good for?--Mautpreller (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

+1. Morover I have certain fears raised by this explanation (and the WMF has no credit left anymore).
First option: The lofty words about universe and stuff were a mean to lure the Foundation into funding the WMF. Well played, but then communicate at least honestly to us volunteers and drop the PR speech that is just a balloon full of warm air and nothing more. And in the end we have a better search function, ok.
Second option: The WMF tries to pull off one of the big visonary projects that it will fuck up again like all other bgger projects in the past, and tries to assure us and lure us into thinking it would be just an improvement of the search function (while blowing it up with visionary wording for the world outside the movement).
What I find most problematic about all this? The WMF recieves more donations than you can spend wisely (that'S why so much money gets burned on crap and efficiency in the WMF is a joke). The search function of our projects is a core area of your technical responsibility. Is it just me who think you could have pulled this off by the funds the WMF is already hoarding? And improvements on thos part of the system got requested by volunteers countless times over the years. Why can't you work on this issue in all seriousness and pull off a real improvement of our search engine without all this lofty PR crap? We are not a Tec Comapny, you don't ahve to sell shares to investors, you neither have to revolutionize knowledge (on which you would fail anyway). Get your business done, simple. --Julius1990 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • This seems like an exciting piece of Innovation and I look forward to seeing the detailed proposal which will presumably be contained in the published grant application. Unfortunately it seems hard to get a view of all the exciting areas of innovation that the WMF is engaged in. The Phabricator tasks linked from the Innovation page seem mainly inactive and there have been no major contributions to that page by WMF staff for six months. Perhaps the scope of the WMF innovation activities are being documented and discussed at some other location, and if so it would be good to see the links. It would also be good to know who are the WMF's innovation partners (I made some suggestions last June, around the time you were ideating the open knowledge universe, but I am sure that the movement can give you a much wider range than I can). Where would you like to see that aspect of the community engagement, which is much wider than the so-called Knowledge Engine project, take place? Or are you satisfied that you already know all you need to know to take forward the WMF innovation programme? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What is being requested

What has been requested is the "grant application". This is a document prepared by the WMF and submitted to the Knight Foundation rather than a document from the donor.

All other moment entities, including chapters and those applying for individual engagement grants publicly post proposals for funding. I do not understanding the reasons the WMF cannot also? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see a citation for the claim that all other movement entities publicly post proposals for funding. In particular, I would be rather surprised if all of the EU research project submissions to FP6, FP7, and Horizon2020 are being published for the chapters that participate in them. Do you have any support for this statement, James? --denny (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think that is certainly not the case, as you say, Denny. My guess is Doc James meant "proposals to WMF for funding". Those have indeed been publicly documented every time (with only one exception I'm aware of in my tenure (since 2011)). Asaf (WMF) (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
To clarify yes I am referring to proposals to the WMF for funding. And thank you User:Asaf (WMF) for answering. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Grants:APG/FDC recommendations/2015-2016 round 1#WMF: "...the FDC laments that the Wikimedia Foundation’s own planning process does not meet the minimum standards of transparency and planning detail that it requires of affiliates applying for its own Annual Plan Grant (APG) process. The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof)."
Speaking of transparency, denny: Do i remember correctly you writing somewhere, that you were obligated as Wikidata project lead to write reports for funding institutions of wikidata (google etc.)? Is this true? Did you write reports, and if so, where can the community read them? --Atlasowa (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Slightly off-topic, no? Yes, the Wikidata reports (both the intermediary and the final one) were all published, just as was the working plan for the Wikidata grant before work started. I am too lazy to find out the links right now. Why asking for possible issues in completely unrelated topics? --denny (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Comparing the degree of transparency shown by various components of the movement seems entirely appropriate for this discussion. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lila, Sj, Ironholds, Doc James, Denny: Having a document like this published on a user talk page seems sub-optimal. Those who are interested in this topic (as opposed to those interested in this user's thoughts generally) can't watchlist it here; among other issues. Any problem if I move this elsewhere for continued discussion -- e.g., Lila Tretikov's remarks on the Knowledge Engine, January 2016? -Pete F (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Or better yet, simply Knowledge Engine -- with a section reserved for Lila's comments. -Pete F (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I reverted the move because although I agree there should be a centralized place for discussion, this is a good discussion here separate from that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
If you'd like to discuss the topic in more depth, I recommend the discovery page talk page. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
For the record, I was not involved with commissioning that report. I was, however, interviewed at some length by its author. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Collaborative Strategy

Latest comment: 8 years ago24 comments3 people in discussion

If you watched the last metric meeting you saw me talk about the synthesis of strategy research we have done over the last nine months. The team recommended and I agreed with them that we would benefit from a more collaborative approach to building out the strategic goals. An internal team of volunteers took over preparing to do this work publicly on-wiki.

As we think about setting new goals we need to establish a new baseline (vs. previous strategy). Before we start, it would be helpful to hear what in the past process worked for you and what you found frustrating. What did you think of the goals? Anything else you'd like to share to inform and improve our upcoming consultation? LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lila, thanks for asking.[1] Let me ask a question too. Which knowledge does the staff of WMF have what motivates the international Community of individual volunteers (iCIV) to contribute? Is there a diversity of contributors that picked up the idea of a „Free“ Encyclopia to reach out for even more freedom? Wikipedia is very successful promoting „free“ (by the means of freedom) but new and old editors experience something different.
Wikipedia shall be an organization of freedom by structural cooperation and support (structural could be a Charter of United WikiMedia-Movement (CUWMM) within the next decade).
What is wrong? Wikipedia and WMF is too techno and not anthro enough. Every contributor has a right to persue happiness and to be supported by the staff of WMF and the members of iCIV. WMF is a role model of the future for my motivation as an editor. Lila, go „anthro“ by advanced structures of cooperation – otherwise the wikipedia-idea will get even more Meidung (engl. shunning)!
Lila, make me happy - please. I am one of a million Wikipedians and even much more in future to come. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Please report about WMF's structured Editor-Relation-Management (Customer Relation Management / CRM) that has been suggested one year ago. (comp. Human to human) --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Getting older – being more free! I try not to be a second-order freerider (dtsch. Trittbrettfahrer zweiter Ordnung) being under the influence of demography and its OINCs (Old Industrial Nations and Cities (and their establishes organizations) – so far. My advice: Be bold, Lila! --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia (anthro + techno) shall be Lattice-Wikipedia of cooperation and the Leitende Grundsätze der Wikimedia-Stiftung (WMF) (english: Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles) shall get a new design. This could be my future motivation and WMF has to pay its costs for cooperation. --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia goes anthro.
Step 1: WMM promotes real vis-à-vis meetings at the village pump – topic orientated.
Step 2: WMM developes anthro-based online-cooperation appling the methode of Community Organizing with empowerment of groups at the village pump. --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Lila, is techno the Shield of Homo Clausus as a Monad avoiding anthro? Techno cannot substitute real anthro. Techno is a free-ride but not a ride towards freedom with a Free Eycyclopedia. Cooperation can be supported by techno but has to be based on anthro. What is the ammount in US$ WMF has spent its bugdet in anthro? --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
anthro is tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight, the designated ceo´s of WMF have to transpond to iCIV. WMF shall be a real supporter of WMM, the global movement of free volunteers. After my lesson of how to forgive I have got, here is my offer of how to make love by structured cooperation (Anthro-Wikipedia). This is realy something new. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lila, losing editors is a disaster. Could you and your staff read Patrick Hudson´s paper, please? For Wikipedia as a major global it might be useful to keep up with the developement of major multi-nationals: bottom-up ‘pull’ rather than top-down ‘push’. Please have a summary written as a "struggle to overcome the [negatives of the] past" commenting on superprotect. ”Managers have to learn to disperse their control.” --Edward Steintain (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Patrick Hudson: Implementing a safety culture in a major multi-national. In: Safety Science. 45, Nr. 6, July 2007, S. 697–722, doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.04.005. (PDF 832 kB, read online)
I remember Sat, 10 Jan 2015 04:25:04 +0100 (CET): „I just wanted to let you know that I received your emails and will get back to you as soon as I can review them.“ WMF, are you ok? --Edward Steintain (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Could WMF please explain its strategy of everyone can contribute to Collaborative Strategy: „Damit kann ja jedeR ankommen!“ (engl. So that each can indeed contribute! – bottom-up ‘kick’) --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC) – Lila, please explain your concept as a global of bottom-up ‘pull’.Reply
Lila, here I am. Your are not close to me living in one of the organizational global backjards of SF, USA. WMF is a case for social workers – honestly: "techno versus anthro". Lila, you are one of a million of the Wikimedia Movement. Do you love me and everybody of iCIV? Let iCIV feel your love!--Edward Steintain (talk)
Hi Edward, we are planning the consultation as we speak. So more news will be coming in the next two weeks and at the Metrics Meeting. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply


Ebenen des iCIV-Empowerments[1]
➚ Zunehmender Grad der Beteiligung
    ermächtigen  
(engl. empower)
    kooperieren  
(engl. cooperate)
    einbeziehen  
(engl. involve)
    konsultieren   Rat einholen
(engl. consult)
    informieren  
(engl. inform)
Ebenen des iCIV-Empowerments mit zunehmendem Editoreneinfluss – vom Informieren zum Ermächtigen (Quelle)

(quote[2]) Es scheint, Lita Tretikov (WMF) ist im Sprachgebrauch neuer organisatorischer Konzepte in der Organisation von freien Freiwilligen noch unerfahren: „Hi Edward, we are planning the consultation as we speak. So more news will be coming in the next two weeks and at the Metrics Meeting. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)“[3]
Die WMF-Schritte von der Konsultation zum Empowerment sind noch unbeholfen. Wenn WMF-Lila mich und alle der iCIV liebt, muss sie dienen: bottom-up ‘pull’ - Lila lift us up! Durch neue Ausblicke werde ich mich freuen werden können, zu Wikipedia beizutragen. --Edward Steintain (Diskussion) 20:14, 5. Jan. 2016 (CET)
Lila, please collect informations about disgust and shunning. Empowerment is like soap. Apply it liberally! Good luck, --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Edward, there are some questions along those lines in the strategy consultation that starts tomorrow. Because there are many things we could do, I recommend making very specific recommendations as in: WMF should do X. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
The Fairy Tales of Lila (WMF). WMF Metrics & Activities Meeting January 2016: „ASAP“. But: Patrick Hudson, Moving up the Culture Ladder (dtsch Die Kulturleiter hinauf): „One of the common simple definition of culture is “how we do things round here”. This is where aspiration meets reality - where the rubber meets the road.“(dtsch Eine der gebräuchlichen, einfachen Definitionen von Kultur ist „wie das bei uns üblich ist“ Da trifft die Aspiration auf die Wirklichkeit – wo der Gummi die Straße berührt.). --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Edward, I'm not sure that I understand you completely. Can you explain what you mean by "the fairy tales of Lila"?
  • Lila, can you explain the diagram on page 15 of this presentation?

Thanks, --Pine✉ 22:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Pine:, this is the diagram our team put together to illustrate the parts of the strategy overall. Everything stems from our vision, that breaks down to strategic pillars of reach, community and knowledge and then the strategies for addressing those are established. The current strategy consultation is designed to find those strategies and prioritize them (WE ARE HERE SIGN). Then from those specific tactics will be identified for the Annual Plan. Is that clearer? LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Lila, yes. Usually I think of vision and mission as forming the base, more specific goals being chosen based on the mission and vision, and then tactics being chosen that will move a situation from the status quo toward the goals. I realize that my own description here is a bit difficult to follow. Anyway, I think I understand what you're attempting to communicate in that diagram. Thanks, --Pine✉ 22:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Pine for asking. The future of WMF and WMM sounds like a fairy tale with a happy end (paper version) but it is helpful to understand Hudson. Enjoy reading it. --Edward Steintain (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
„Reduce harassment issues and the gender gap“. To call it Harassment is to be prejudiced. I gave it a new name: male wikipedic blick (dtsch Tunnelblick). blick – as the English synonyme „look/-ing“ (not tunnel vision) is recommended that is an editor's remark describing evolutionary traits in WMx´s developement[4]. Good luck, --Edward Steintain (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
male wikipedic blick. Seriously, „Evolutionary models show that indirect reciprocity can solve the problem of free-riders (which doomed simpler models of altruism) in moderately large groups (32), as long as people have access to information about reputations (e.g., gossip) and can then engage in low-cost punishment such as shunning (dtsch Meidung).“[5] male wikipedic blick, I enjoy gossiping and making up words. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am a Nowak fan: „Cooperation is needed for evolution to construct new levels of organization. … A cooperator is someone who pays a cost, c, for another individual to receive a benefit, b.“ (Martin A. Nowak: Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. In: Science. 314, Nr. 5805, 2006-12-08, S. 1560–1563, doi:10.1126/science.1133755, PMC 3279745) --Edward Steintain (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
In Hudson's paper you might like to substitute „safety“ by cooperation or even structured cooperation to create a close connection of understanding about WMF and WMMovement.
  • I see calculative organisations as being like caterpillars. Steadily munching their way through the leaves, very organised and efficient but the caterpillar looks up to the sky and sees a beautiful butterfly floating past and thinks, "I wish I could be like that." Hudson, p. 4
  • (dtsch Ich betrachte kalkulatorische Organisationen als Raupen. Stetig ihren Weg durch die Blätter mampfend, sehr gut organisiert und effizient, aber die Raupe blickt zum Himmel, sieht einen schönen Schmetterling vorbeigleiten und denkt: „Ich wünschte, ich könnte so sein.“)

WMF burning millions

If a character written to stop superprotect is worth 0.01 Cent and its motivation to contribute to the Wiki-idea would only be half of it (0.005 Cent) how many millions free-riding WMF has burnt (money and editors) – to recover only after a very long time? - if going on like this. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Lila, spend money on the developement of structured (internet-based) cooperation. I recommend 300 k€ for the German chapter.Reply

Lila, you and WMF are excused. Contributors to Superprotect did not set a Nomark (dtsch Neinzeichen). Otherwise it would have been made easy on you and WMF to be alert: WMF has a problem of motivation. Lila, you and WMF as alphas are forgiven by a minor omega piper (as done before) who wants to grow up to be a real Wikipedian whistleblower. Love, --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Stop WMF's Kraut-management. iCIV is the global crowd.
  1. ↑ (International Association for Public Participation 2006: 35) zitiert nach Template:Internetquelle – Diese Publikation wurde in drei Teilen veröffentlicht: 1, 2 und 3.

FYI: Follow-up question from the metrics meeting today

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

See Talk:WMF Metrics and activities meetings/2016-01#Follow-up from live question re. engagement survey. It looks like Boryana is not on Meta (I couldn't find an account on any wiki for her actually). If you could help me make her aware of the follow-up question, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --EpochFail (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comment, I will ask to follow up. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I too am interested in this, although perhaps for slightly different reasons. This email from HR implies to me that the situation with staff turnover and morale is generally OK. Apparently that answer omitted data suggesting a high level of discontent among staff with WMF senior management. I don't appreciate being misled, and I would like to ask for an explanation of why important information which contradicts the general tone of the email that was sent to Wikimedia-l was completely omitted from that email. --Pine✉ 20:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Pine, I'm sorry if you felt misled. That wasn't my intention when I answered the turnover question. It was, of course, already on schedule to talk about the results of the engagement survey during metrics as HR had done in the past. In retrospect, I see that I might have mentioned that we were going to be sharing the survey results in about a week. EpochFail, I will defer to LilaTretikov (WMF) to address the Signpost article pertaining to the leadership development needs we have. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1010:b02c:60b7:a46c:8c2d:d073:ce42 (talk) January 22, 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been pondering this statement, and regrettably I still have concerns. WMF would certainly know that Wikimedia-l and the Metrics Meeting are used by different audiences. Also, the delays in releasing this information and the general lack of transparency are problematic. Also, we are still waiting to hear comments from Lila about the staff surveys. My confidence is pretty shaken regarding the handling of this situation. I am taking this set of circumstances into account in considering what strategic courses of action to discuss with the community. --Pine✉ 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any opinion about the disgraced new board member?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The board has appointed a disgraced member to its ranks, that was involved in illegal acts against employees and thus is completely unsuitable as a board member. OK, the board is officially something like your boss, though in reality the community should be, but nevertheless: Do you have any opinion to offer about this disgusting appointment? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

To make one thing clear: I'm not for ostracising Arnnon completely, he has just proven beyond any doubt that he is unsuitable for any leading position in any business, that claims to be even remotely ethical. He may still be employed as a rank-and-file employee, with lots of oversight, he's just completely discredited for any leading position because of his illegal and unethical deeds. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Copyright violation by WMF on 15.wikipedia.org

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

See en:Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 January 17. Multiple Copy vios by WMF. Respect!?! Funny that you on the bottom of the history page state: "Images are freely licensed with attribution." but don't mention any attribution itself. and by the way with cc-by-sa attribtion is not enought at all. maybe some seminar about basic Wikipedia knowledege for WMF? .oO ...Sicherlich Post 12:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Lila, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the site https://15.wikipedia.org/history.html provides a very special birthday gift from WMF to the Wikipedians' community: The use of user-generated content without any attribution or mention, disregarding the licenses and the core principle of Wikipedia to cite the source where one takes other's content from. By a long research I managed to identify those (ab)used files and text:

I would appreciate to get to know your personal thoughts on this case and how to solve these issues in the fastest possible way (preferrably with an honest apology to the original contributors). Thank you. --.js[democracy needed] 12:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @Sicherlich and .js:, this was already noticed by the team and is part of an update. We did not intend to use content without attritbution, this was my mistake. I appreciate your taking the time to let us know. heather walls (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sicherlich and .js: Thanks for bringing this to our attention, the attributions can be found in full. heather walls (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Heather, looks very good now :) --.js[democracy needed] 09:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sicherlich and .js: Thank you guys for bringing this up. I've passed the issue on to the Legal Department to make sure we get some eyes on it. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for brining up and KBrown for making sure we address any issues. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Heather, Karen and Lila for your answers; I did not at all expect a single person being pushed to take full responsibility alone, really sorry for that, Heather! And I regard that neither justful nor as professional management.
Hello @.js:, I'm not sure what you mean, but I was not pushed to take responsibility. I was pointed toward these comments by someone who hasn't participated in the conversation. I felt it was important to accelerate the updates, and some of my colleagues (@Yuvipanda, Slaporte (WMF), and JSutherland (WMF):) were kind enough to help on our day off. Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Lila could you please tell me if there is any procedure that ensures WMF staff and contractors get educated in the Wikipedians' core principles prior to any content publishing contributions they will have to perform?
(I'm asking that because since I started editing Wikipedia somewhen in 2005 I had to witness over the years very many instances of WMF staff dealing with Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons contents without even having any basic understanding of the mandatory licencing requirements. I could provide links to found my claim, but I do not want to persons being spotlighted but address a general problem and I am sure that this must be very well known by the WMF managent and the Board of Trustees.) --.js[democracy needed] 09:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Employee communications

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Hi Lila, I've heard rumors indicating that WMF staff are feeling intimidated into keeping silent in public about matters that bother them.

While a certain amount of organizational cohesion is necessary in WMF, the existence of workplace intimidation and threats of retaliation against staff who voice their opinions about the governance of the organization would be problematic, if these rumors are true (and I hope that they aren't).

  • We are collectively strong proponents of free speech in the public sphere, as demonstrated by the SOPA blackout and the ongoing lawsuit against the US Government.
  • We are an open-source educational movement, so if these practices are occurring, they would be misaligned with the nature of our work.
  • Many staff could easily find employment elsewhere, and have little reason to work for an organization where they do not feel valued or feel intimidated.
  • Turnover of high quality staff would be a problem. My understanding is that staff generally cite the Wikimedia mission and their enjoyment of working with intelligent peers as being among their reasons for choosing to work for WMF.

So, while I would expect staff to conduct themselves professionally and in a way that as aligned with the Wikimedia mission, I find these reports disturbing. I hope that you will comment on this situation and make clear what your expectations are for staff communications in public.

Thank you, --Pine✉ 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is not mere rumor; there are multiple explicit public statements on this. -Pete F (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi Pine, retaliation is strictly prohibited by WMF policy and will not be tolerated. A healthy discourse is important in any organization, especially within our movement which values free speech. We support feedback in our office. I ask anyone who believes they are experiencing retaliation to report it to myself, HR, or Legal. Allegations of retaliation will be investigated and we will take action.
What we are working on is improving our performance, conflict resolution and civil communication within the organization. We are making these initiatives based on what our own employees told us. I personally receive plenty of criticism from staff members and I try to integrate this criticism into my work as much as possible. I believe it is very valuable, especially when coming from a place of good faith. We do ask all to practice civility and etiquette and to avoid being disruptive. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I hope that this is sufficient clarification for staff who seemed to be feeling like their jobs were threatened if they communicated certain varieties of their opinions in public. I realize that there is ambiguity about what is appropriate criticism and protected expression of personal opinions, and when the line is crossed into inappropriate commenary. I hope that staff who still have doubts in this area are able to clarify the situation with you, HR, or Legal in a manner that respects the autonomy and rights of all concerned, particularly when employees wish to communicate in public "off the clock" in their personal capacities. --Pine✉ 00:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I hate to seem like I am assuming bad faith here but I asked several people (6 if you need the actual number) and 2 that formerly work at the WMF and every one of the ones I asked said they feel/or felt intimidated at work. So, even if Lila herself feels that retaliation is strictly prohibited by WMF policy, then perhaps many of the other junior leadership feel differently. These sentiments are also vocal on virtually every message board out there that deals with employee ratings of their companies. Additionally, the WMF doesn't listen or seem to want to work with the majority of the volunteer community and most of those communities feel they can't trust the WMF and the WMF doesn't seem to care. So why would they care about the paid employees when they can just get another one and have people lining up to work there. Take a look at one for yourself:
  • [6] Glass Door reviews
Its easy to say that something is against policy but if you don't enforce it or ignore it when its convenient, which is the case with the volunteer communities admins and functionaries that the WMF chooses not to do anything about, then it doesn't really mean much to say its against policy. Reguyla (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Pine: I have taken great care to speak with civility during these months of conflict, particularly when I have spoken in public. I have also expressed my concerns about the potential for retaliation to my manager and to HR. I have been repeatedly assured that I have nothing to worry about due to the care I take with my words, but the specific standards that are being used to define "aggressive", "unprofessional", and "uncivil" are still unclear to me. I hear my colleagues' concerns and see some of them being censured for speaking in ways that I have found sharply critical but still fundamentally honest and civil, and I worry that someday I will be the one who is suddenly found to have stepped over lines which were previously invisible or unspoken. I fear that even making this reply with my volunteer account will be considered "unprofessional": it is both critical and public, and no clarification has been given yet on the question of what constitutes "professional" usage of our staff and volunteer accounts. Fhocutt (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
A few comments here in my volunteer capacity as a Wikimedian and as a software engineer who has been watching dysfunctional power dynamics in the larger tech and free software communities for years now:
  • I would not expect English Wikipedia's policies (en:WP:CIVIL) or guidelines (en:WP:ETIQ) to apply to WMF staff at large in a WMF context, as these policies are tailored to the specific needs and social dynamics of English Wikipedia. These projects have different community standards for interacting and contributing to the projects--for instance, types of communication that are normal on one project may be considered quite hostile on another. Any organization needs clear standards for behavior that fit its specific context, and I believe the WMF is no different from other Wikimedia communities in that regard.
  • I have heard quiet stories of retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and other forms of poor treatment from members of a number of tech companies and open source organizations. In most of these cases some combination of HR, Legal, and senior management (or its equivalent, perhaps the BDFL) have either been the source of that treatment or have acted as enablers, often in the name of minimizing liability to the larger organization, and usually in a way that causes severe damage to the targets' health and careers. I know that some of those organizations had policies against retaliation, and claimed to support constructive criticism and diverse points of view. So if a friend working at such a company told me that she had been given similar reassurances to the ones given above, I would tell her to be very, very careful--especially if she had been publicly critical in a way that might be perceived to cause embarrassment or liability to the company, regardless how polite, civil, or professional she had been in doing so. Please note--I am not in any way diminishing the good work done in HR and Legal at the WMF! My observations over the years, however, mean that I can't help being worried when I see warning signs or antipatterns, and--as I would advise that hypothetical friend to be--I am still not reassured. A clear, written policy would help allay these worries. Fhocutt (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lila, does the Wikimedia Foundation still maintain a list of individuals with whom employees are forbidden to communicate? If so, how many individuals are recorded on that list, and how are names added to the list, or removed (if ever)? - Thekohser (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&oldid=15301530"