Jump to content

User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Edward Steintain in topic Collaborative Strategy

Good Practice Models and Open Source Strategy[edit]

A new wiki search requires a community movement. This will only be successful, if the new search engine is

  1. a) open source from code
  2. b) open source from the database, that means, everyone can share and get and host this URL-Repository
  3. c) and this might be the main point: that everyone can contribute not only in sharing, but also in hosting the infrastructure: This means, it must be a p2p system to search for URLs.

As a good practice model there is already such a system given under http://spot-on.sf.net

* The URL-Search is done both, in a central server and in a p2p search system.
* The URL-Search can index the website with full text or only with e.g. 50 top longest words. also you can adjust the number of 50, so you reach again a full indexing of the website.
* Users can join the central URL repository and share it and backup it in a p2p system: also they can share URLs to the central repository, which also can provide filter rules, so that only wikipedia URLs are added-
* There exists a web crawler for this URL repository, called Pandamonium: https://sourceforge.net/projects/goldbug/files/pandamonium-webcrawler/
* Also there is the convenient option to save all the URLs into the Database using a RSS feed.
* As a database both can be used: PostgreSQL and also SQLite.
* The Application is given and has several GUIs. It makes sense to investigate this open source software for URL indexing, as it would save a lot of money, IMHO the web search is already given and ready and needs just a roll out and a web interface.
* All the transfers and savings in the database are encrypted.

Screenshot: https://a.fsdn.com/con/app/proj/spot-on/screenshots/Spot-On.png

Please evaluate this model for a usage in this project, as it is useable, saves a lot of money and is ready to use and extend.

Collaborative Strategy[edit]

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
(engl. empower)
(engl. cooperate)
(engl. involve)
    konsultieren   Rat einholen
(engl. consult)
(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.“)
This contribution tries to copy a known intervention: „Damn it! Sit down and think what is good about Wikipedia at all. Answer after two weeks! Now, get off! I can't stand it anymore.“
As a single member of the iCIV (international Community of Individual Volunteers) I want to feel save and get some protection supporting me against the mob and bulls of male wikipedian binary blickers.
(Wikipedia.) Feeling safe and achieving safety is one of the basic human demands: Hudson explains the Cultural Ladder. The chapters of Wikipedia might follow this track providing a structure (like QIOP) to help decide:
  • where you are now;
  • where you want to go to; and
  • support the process of getting there.
--Edward Steintain (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC) (Provocation for liberation: With Wikipedia too many do-gooders act as second-order free-riders (dtsch Trittbrettfahrer zweiter Ordnung) – no justice = the binary morality of male wikipedian blickers (wikipedia:MWB).Reply
The global Story of Wikipedia. A repercussion of the historic German Gauleiter? The gauleiters stablize the existing system if not otherwise adviced. A repeating harsh contact with wikipedia:MWB.gauleiters triggers Meidung (engl. shunning). --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia's He-Man with a Male wikipedic blick is ruling. The male wikipedic blicker has its own norms of morality, no one has a chance to object – MWB is protected by the shield of very many second-order free-riders. Wikipedia has no morals in a common senence but many of its own (that is WMB)! The only chance to object a male wikipedic blicker is to shun (dtsch de:Meidung). Normal norms are typicically share widely. Wikipedia does not! The only way to punish a WMB is by shunning (dtsch de:Meidung) cause a typical WMB does not accept (dtsch) „Tadel“. Manchen WMB verachte ich schon lange; das ist meine soziale Sanktion! I think I feel like millions. WMF and its Chapters must learn to sanction in time by fair means. The end of Wikipedia's binary He-Man. Binary techno is going multinary anthro. Morally blow-jobbing WMB's are in tune with todays world. But Wikipedia is different – in the end. Good luck. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
The new Wikipedia barn-stars shall be: „I have successfully perticipated in a WMF-training how to cooperate – the story of diversity. Please give me your vote to be an administrator! To develope Wikipeida to a really free Encyclopedia of this world we are living in.“ --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
A senior Wikipedian with a MWB has removed Meidung. What is a second-order free-rider? The future of Wikipedia. --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Harressment leads to injustice. No probleme: „When I find myself in troubles Ceo Lila speaks to me. Let it be. Let it be.“ This is a hit-song for shunning (dtsch de:Meidung WMF and Wikipedia – one type of solving the problem.

But if I do not want to „Let it be!“ I might scream for help. How do I scream for help with Wikipedia if I feel to be a victom of injustice?

A HELP-Buttom I can press that says: „Community please. Don't leave me along. Please, support me on keeping on the discussion! Share your arguments.“ ?

A HELP-Buttom the members of the wikipedian community can press that says: „Community please. Don't leave them along. Please, support her on keeping on the discussion! Share your arguments.“ ?

Screaming for help with Wikiedia might once stop pradatorish MWBs.

Screaming for help makes some non-MWB humans to show their altruism: The take their mobile and call the police or ambulance. In the inhumane system of Wikipedia there is on chance to call for help. WMF and chapters do not care a shit (it has not been institutionalized yet)! Instead of this – there are a lot of rubbernecks and Gaffers without a chance to call for help collectively – one by one. ---Edward Steintain (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let's have fun with Wikipedia in future. Please, start laughing! Whenever there is an adverse event like a revert or the dawning of a deletion or exclusion of an editor a bot starts screaming: „HELP – discussion needed!“ - … and no one cares a shit. It's a MWB's World. --Edward Steintain (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
As a successor of MCP the term Male Wikipedic Blick (MWB) is recommended for consultation. --Edward Steintain (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
To support cooperation free-riding WMBer could actually be controlled by reputation. What is the reputation of an administrator who deletetd de:Meidung? Has he disowned references about practices of NAZI-Deutschland and declared „that's not the way we understand Meidung (engl. shunning) in Germany today“. This might have been a severe mistake. But how do I get to know rumors doubting the administrator's decission? My conclusion: Wikipedia needs a „Please help“-button to spread the rumor and doubts. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sustainable development goals
Transforming Our World - the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
16.10 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels
Why should I be a star-gazer? Good luck, Wikipedia. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Within two years if iCIV (international Community of Indvidual Volunteers) picks up the UN-message I shall proudly say: „I am a member of Wikipedia – supporting a free encyclopedia and the goals of the UN by referred WP-articles and by my work for it.“ --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
(Some existing Wikipedians (especially MWBers) might answer: „We are not used to this. That's not the way we understand things. This is not our culture; we have other habits of interaction.“ --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC))Reply
Wikipedia loves the goals of United Nations (UNO) and is persuing them as a free encyclopedia. Free knowledge supports mankind to persue happiness for each living member of the global society. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC) (How do people look at Wikipedia today?)Reply
The members of resistance of the old de.wp-regime are vandalizing. Trittbrettfahrer zweiter Ordnung (engl. second-order free-rider) was deleted. [6]. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Lila Tretikov, CEO of WMF, shuns (dtsch Meidung - deleated by de.wp) Male Wikipedic Blick (MWB) like millions of new editors before. Now Lila Tretikov is a real member of the crowd of the international Community of Individual Volunteers (iCIV). Lila, go for a second run with Wikipedia: Push the broom! Clear Wikipedia and WMF-staff from MWBers. Remove the male tunnel vision from Wikipedia. The New Deal of Wikipedia is structured cooperation. Good luck Wikipedia with Lila Tretikow for a second time with an agreed duty for a new cooperation! Stop MWBers! --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC) That's the time I shall be going to edit Wikipedia again.Reply

WMF burning millions[edit]

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.