User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)/Archive 13

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Reach, Retention, Reliability

Lila, I hope you'll take a moment and review a new project I recently began, [1]. While it still may be a little rough around the edges, there are some excellent strategies and incentives that cover the 3 key items - Reach, Retention, Reliability - and all that's needed is for the WMF to get behind it. Following are a couple of paragraphs from the project's TP:

Project Accuracy will be an organized community effort that brings project teams together in a united effort. Since the focus of project teams is content, it aligns with the focus of PA. Perhaps each team could hold elections and appoint their own representatives to act as coordinator(s) who work with PA coordinators, and together comprise the Project Accuracy Editorial Review Board (PAERB). They are the ones who will give the ok to affix the "reviewed and approved for accuracy" seal to an article, thus the term "RAAFA sealed article". The articles we will be working on initially will be GAs and FAs that have already passed scrutiny by qualified reviewers. Those articles will be further reviewed by another team of qualified editors (as with the FA process) per the criteria of Project Accuracy, and presented for consideration to the PAERB who will affix the RAAFA seal to the article. It is not too unlike the process in a quality peer-reviewed Journal. If we can get the WMF to approve it and help with our outreach and promotional efforts, we will be on the road to credibility regarding the negative perceptions of WP by the general public, academia, and researchers. PAERB would be the highest level of review in the content review process, and the RAAFA seal will indicate a high level of reliability because of the process itself and the qualifications of editors who review the articles and comprise the PAERB. I've been putting my big toe in the water and conducted random tests presenting the concept to students, parents and teachers, and received positive results. Perhaps the WMF could create a little survey to learn more, or maybe the PA team could create a survey and ask WMF to deploy it. I'm not sure how that works but it would be helpful to get feedback from academia and the general public to see if such a process would lend more credibility to WP articles that carry the RAAFA seal.

In summary, I actually do believe all articles should be semi-protected because doing so doesn't actually prevent well-meaning IPs from editing to improve articles whereas it does help prevent vandalism because of the extra step required in the process. Well-meaning IPs can easily apply for clearance just as they do now and edit to their heart's content. I also see editor retention and the efforts of hard working content creators to be equally as important, and know how frustrating it can be when vandalism, trolling and sock activity creates disruption. It not only chips away at article credibility, it creates hurdles for editors to overcome, is a major time sink, and an incentive killer. For the sake of brevity I'll summarize simply that WP:Project Accuracy is a community project with a focus on (1) creating incentive for editors to invest more time in creating quality articles, (2) helping to strengthen WP project teams and (3) building credibility to the reliability of RAAFA sealed articles which further lends credibility to WP as an accurate and reliable source.

Thank you for your consideration. Atsme📞📧 04:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: While the following link may not be the best topic to demonstrate some of the issues, it was handy because someone had just posted it on FB, so I grabbed it. It's one of many circulating over the internet, and these kinds of posts will grind WP down eventually if they are not properly countered. It used to be "word of mouth" among the masses; now it's text of text: [2]. It speaks to Project Accuracy, and how important such a project is to WP. Thanks --Atsme📞📧 04:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Most of the Wikibashers have an axe to grind. The one in question is by a proponent of w:orthomolecular medicine, who objects to Wikipedia's treatment of his particular form of quackery.
As to peer reviewed WP articles there is one at least that has been peer-reviewed and published in a suitable journal, conversely there is a programme of creating peer-reviewed journal articles which are re-published on WP.
Rich Farmbrough 21:21 13 February 2016 (GMT).
Not every critic of Wikipedia's reliability has an axe to grind -- indeed, as we all know, Wikipedia does not regard itself as a reliable source. But public perception is an issue, whatever its motivation, and it seems important that the Wikimedia projects in general strive not only for accuracy and reliability, but are seen in public to be doing so, and indeed to be achieving it. Are you suggesting to Lila that the rate at which the peer-review projects you mention are proceeding is sufficiently fast to make the proposal made here unnecessary? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a capital waste of our time to review and re-review nonsense that is written about Wikipedia. That is not to say that there are no cogent criticisms.
  • Wikipedia does not include itself as a source to be cited (generally), in the same way that a book or research paper cannot cite itself. To do so would be circular reasoning. It is not a declaration of low quality.
  • I was replying to Arsme, because these are successful models in one area and may be extendable to other areas. There is also a project which shares chemical structures with en:WP, effectively maintaining a much higher reliability level than we could alone.
We do need to think about the next step in reliability. I am concerned that the community may be too ossified to make the leap. I don't think Atsme's project will fly as described, because there's too much hierarchy involved. It does, however, address an important need.
Rich Farmbrough 13:53 24 February 2016 (GMT).

"However, I was too afraid of engaging the community early on. Why do you think that was?"

Above you ask a question that I don't see that anyone has responded to. I think it was primarily because you come from the for-profit world, where you keep development plans secret (and rightly so, for fear of losing your competitive advantage), and I think you didn't understand the culture of the editing community and its expectations of transparency, and that it would be very costly to not engage. So, primarily a culture thing. To the extent you did consider the editing community, I would guess that you were daunted by how to even talk to us, and the potential for really crazy responses. But why were you afraid? And what kind of discussions did you have with the board about this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Many possible answers, only for you to indicate which ones are correct:

  • Your lack of technical knowledge (wikitext, templates, whatever) made you afraid that you would commit gaffes and make a fool of yourself (even if only in your own perception)
  • Your lack of "community knowledge", knowledge of how the community works, what the different groups and players are, who to listen to and who you could safely or wisely ignore, made you afraid to engage us, either out of fear of dealing with crackpots and the like, or out of fear of coming across as incompetent or lacking in knowledge, leading to social faux-pas
  • You didn't know what the WMF (the other people) had said and promised (or threatened or declared) and would not like to contradict them or make false promises, out of fear of losing the trust of the people that worked for you
  • You were aware that many people at enwiki (and dewiki, and ...) had little or no trust in the WMF and some of the individuals there (including key players like Erik Moeller), and expressed that dislike or contempt at times forcefully, certainly when provoked (Superprotect, while the most blatant, wasn't the first or last instance of a total communication breakdown which could largely be blamed on the WMF). As head of the WMF, you were afraid that you would feel the brunt of this community feeling and that you wouldn't get a fair chance and be treated badly instead.
  • Something else I haven't thought of immediately

I'm not claiming that any of the above is accurate, but since you asked for our thoughts... Fram (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Editorial control

Commons is a repository of (mostly) images, collected under a specific rubric.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia whose content is covered by different rules. As such "surfacing" Commons content in Wikipedia is an infringement on editorial control. En:WP treats Commons (and all other projects) as an "external website" clearly signposting links (with a few exceptions), and introducing them only by selection. Surfacing this content in en:WP risks bringing the project into disrepute by displaying or linking to content we would consider inappropriate. The same applies to other Wikipedias who may not follow the same editorial policy as we do (and vice versa of course).

Rich Farmbrough 13:40 24 February 2016 (GMT).

Knowledge Engine/FAQ

I was hopeful that disclosure of what has gone in the past year or so would be forthcoming. You have not responded at the FAQ you started since Feb 18th, per your contribs. Have you abandoned that effort? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for our time together

Copied to Lila Tretikov's Departing Address

Dear fellow Wikimedians,

It is with great respect that I have tendered, and the board has accepted, my resignation as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation earlier this week. I am both inspired by, and proud of, the many great things we have all accomplished at the Foundation over the last two years, most significantly reversing the loss of our editorial community. I would like to thank our Board of Trustees and Advisors, our Foundation staff, as well as the many outstanding community members for their support and encouragement on this journey. I remain passionate about the value and potential of open knowledge and Wikimedia to change the world. My last day at the Foundation will be March 31, 2016.

Wikimedia occupies a special place in the world. It is a cultural and technological revolution. Change is necessary to keep it thriving. In bringing me in as the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation the Board tasked me with making changes to serve the next generation and ensure our impact in the future. Driving these changes has been challenging, and I have always appreciated the open and honest discourse we have had along the way. However, I am moved by the accomplishments we have achieved during this time:

  • Strategically, we laid out our summary of the vision for united in knowledge and future of Wikimedia last June.
  • Operationally, we have reformed our procedures and initiated key performance metrics and reviews.
  • Technologically we have introduced innovative approaches such as machine learning and mobile applications, started improvements in search, grew translations and dramatically improved website performance. In 2015, we made visual editor the default for all new users on English Wikipedia.
  • We united our community support departments and created a new community tech team to address community needs.
  • Profoundly, for the first time in seven years, highly active editor numbers have increased and overall editor decline has stopped.
  • Equitably, I am proud of our efforts to address the gender gap, our growing focus on site safety and anti-harassment initiatives and child protection -- I believe these are essential to protecting the fundamental principles of tolerance, open discourse and mutual respect -- our greatest strengths.
  • We fought against censorship and surveillance, which pose severe existential threats to our mission of free knowledge.
  • Financially, we grew rapidly in 2014-15 to seed and launch the Wikimedia Endowment and secure our future for years to come.

I move on with confidence that the Foundation can meet new challenges in a challenging environment. I believe in our ability to continue to lead through this change. At this critical juncture for the Foundation, and for the free and open knowledge movement as a whole, solidarity, creativity, adaptability and passion will continue to propel our movement forward, and empower our vision towards our future.

I will support the process of identifying our new leadership in every way that I can, and offer my assistance to the Board as they conduct their search for my successor. It has been an honor to serve and to contribute to our great movement.

With warm regards,

Lila

I trust I am far from the only person to wish you Godspeed ("счастливого пути" if Google does not fail me) after all the strange machinations and muck-throwing done the past few months. The dichotomy between the legitimate requirements of the foundation and the interesting views of the editors on Wikipedia made for very strange discussions at best, and, in my meager opinion, unwarranted personal attacks in too many instances. Again - best wishes on leaving the fray, which will doubtless continue for some time to come. Collect (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Best wishes on your future endeavors. There is life beyond the WMF.:-) Reguyla (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Cup of tea

Cup of tea

Thank you for making the decision to step down and for agreeing to help with the transition. This has been difficult for the WMF staff and for the community, and I would guess that this has been difficult for you as well. In the long run I hope that we will all end up in places that are good for each of us. --Pine 20:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

From the very beginning of your announcement as Director, this page was filled with many different messages of support and others... well... not so supportive, which would probably foresee how hard would be your challenge here. I bet it was hard for you to deal with that, but I hope you can leave with a good impression of the movement. Apart from everything, I keep with the idea that you tried to do your best and in fact accomplished many important tasks and that should be taken in consideration. You did what was probably the best thing to do at this moment and you did it because you care. Have my sincere "thank you" for doing your best.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the current fracas, we are grateful that the Foundation, under your control, became more responsive to the community's needs. The ongoing harassment consultation and the Community Tech initiatives are particularly worthy of commendation. Thank you and best wishes. MER-C (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Lila, I just wanted to say that while we did not always agree, I believe that your were trying to move the WMF in the right direction, and I certainly appreciated your willingness to engage with community members. Best wishes. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to join in and Thank Lila, as well. I don't know about anyone else, but all our interactions were pleasant. You were responsive here and in general, that was a great improvement over your predecessor. I am grateful for your hard work, working through tomes and tomes of comments here daily - it certainly wasn't an easy task but you kept at it with such a resilience - it always gave me hope. The failure here was much larger, someone failed you along the way, either in advising or acclimatising or maybe you just had wrong people around you. The disagreements here were mostly professional from the community members - do try and keep that in mind. You are probably a wonderful, skilled person who ended up here on her own merit - there's a lot to be proud of there, no matter what you feel right now. I wish you the best in all your future ventures Lila. Thanks again, and best wishes. Theo10011 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to express my great appreciation for the very positive developments in community engagement. In fact I was planning to come here to leave a positive note, before I learned you were leaving. I wish you all the best. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for serving as Executive Director here Lila. I'm saddened to see you go. With a big heart, you dreamed big, and left a big impression. I hope you continue to do so in all your future endeavors. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 06:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Cup of bitterness

Dear Lila you were warned not to play against the community.ref. Please read it again:

to make it short an clear: change your mind or leave.

hi Lila. to make it short and clear:

  • WMF has to respect the communtiy and their decisions.(sic!)
  • nobody else than the community has more competence about what is needed for the project of Wikipedia.
  • as long as you do not understand Wikipedia you (sorry to be so clear) and any other parts of WMF are bad for this project.
  • pls. change your mind or leave.

Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. WMF should not even try(see) to play chess against the communtiy. short and clear: you will loose.

Hi Gruß Tom. I wanted to comment here. Lila is pretty much gone from here to reply, but I wanted to ask who you think is "them" or the sole embodiment of "WMF" in this whole community vs. WMF dynamics? - Lila served as an executive very briefly here, Sue and Erik built WMF for almost 10 years in to what it is today. Lila was hired by the board, supported, directed and championed by them - from Jimmy to our elected representatives to even Sue and all the advisors. The whole superprotect debacle at de.wp happened under Erik/Sue, not lila. Erik/Sue championed AFT, Global dev, centralized fundraiser, bigger fundraisers and several other decisions - they abandoned some or changed their mind on others - I didn't see them respect the community's decision any more or less during several of those disagreements. They made a lot more bigger decisions that left a lasting impact.
On the contrary, Lila proposed her changes but left before there was anything to even show, mostly due to internal conflicts around staff and board. I don't know why people only focus on the last year so much that they forget how we got here. A lot of collective decisions by a lot of people on a lot of issues brought us here (and we keep coming back here every year). And besides, Lila is gone - the point is more than made. Going through all this publicly was probably very difficult and hurtful for her, or anyone for that matter, and your comment here isn't particularly nice. It is like kicking someone who is down or isn't even there to defend themselves - I don't know you, but I know our community - and we are better than that. I wish you well and I wish Lila well - try and embody the best that our volunteer culture has to offer, friend. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
While I very much agree that it's time to respect Lila's decision and allow her to move on gracefully, you have (unintentionally, I am sure) made an error, Theo10011. Lila had been the ED of Wikimedia Foundation for over 3 months when Superprotect was applied. Risker (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't like this conversation, especially the first comment above. I wouldn't ordinarily comment on something like this, but I do want to address one detail from your post, Theo10011:
"The Whole superprotect debacle at de.wp happened under Erik, not lila."
What on earth makes you say that? It seems exactly wrong to me. Lila was Erik's boss, and of course was aware of the issues around Superprotect both before and after. The board has stated that they were briefed on Superprotect before it was deployed -- surely you don't think it was Erik who briefed them? Superprotect survived long past Erik's departure. No Wikimedia official, to my knowledge, has ever stated that Erik was the driver of Superprotect. What in the world would make you attribute it to him, and not to her? -Pete F (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Risker and Pete F. I have had this discussion on this very talk page. I have my own version of the events and there aren't any records to match up against the dates. Here are my reasons - 1) The transition period was never really made clear. 2) Then, superprotect itself was merely a salvo fired during wheel warring at de.wp against the mediaviewer activation - the mediaviewer and its activation, weren't really Lila's project - they were Erik's from what I recall (Please correct me if I am wrong?) and predate ED search period. 3) Then, As you mention yourself, She had been the ED for 3 months. Is that enough time for someone who has had zero prior exposure to the community to make any large decision like the superprotect? Even if she was in charge- could she have probably understood the implication of those actions with so little time and experience - so it eventually falls to her staff and transition team, which again points the finger back at Erik et al. 4) And to be frank, I can't be the only one who noticed so many strong handed actions during that time - the whole admin right removal at wmf.wiki which poor gayle ended up being blamed for, italian wiki blackout response from WMF, Global development (first for then against), fundraising disagreements and how AFT didn't go away after so many attempts along with so many other decisions - I saw superprotect as an extension of that same mentality, not the same mind who wanted this knowledge engine and that too, to come up at 3 months at a completely new job with a completely different background. 5) Superprotect needed much more prior knowledge of Wikimedia and the community, knowledge engine is actually proof to the contrary, that that knowledge/experience might not have been acquired, even after an year at the job. Please correct me if I have the timeline wrong. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, Theo. You're suggesting that Lila had such a poor understanding of the movement after three months that she could not understand that application of Superprotect would be a flashpoing, and that she didn't recognize a revolt that was occurring quite literally in front of her own eyes: Superprotect was applied during Wikimania London, with dozens of German Wikimedians in attendance and loudly protesting the action, and Lila there the whole time. I get that you disagreed with other actions taken by other people at the WMF over an extended period of time. Superprotect was carried out on Lila's watch, with her right there in the middle of the entire Wikimedia community, and with her discussing it with the Board in advance of it occuring. It is unhelpful to continue to promote your revisionist history; the facts have been clear since the day Superprotect was applied, and this ongoing revisionist history is really quite damaging. I don't know in what world you would think it is helpful to anyone (including Lila, incidentally) to suggest that Lila as ED didn't understand the issues with Superprotect. Risker (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes Risker , I am absolutely suggesting 3 months is not enough time to understand Wikipedia and the movement. It took me much longer, and I only edited quietly, reading the comments and the lists for an year or more. And we can agree, she might not have had the foresight to expect the revolt(s) in front of her eyes or the implication thereof - one of her big shortcomings. My impression is based on public information on Meta, news sources and the lists - I, along with 99% of the community weren't at Wikimania London, nor do we have any level of access to staff. There are gaping holes of information between events and publicly available information - my narrative, as well as yours could both be supported. So, based on the same public information, here are some quotes -
In 2014 Möller's account was blocked on the German Wikipedia because he created, implemented and used "Superprotect" rights to overrule the German Wikipedia's decision to not enable a new mechanism to view images until legal and technical problems were fixed.[3] [4]
Möller left the WMF on 30 April 2015. [5]"" -From Erik's own page on Wikipedia.
News story quote from cited source -
The Foundation recently hired Lila Treitkov as its executive director, so bringing in a professional with a background in commercial software: Treitkov was an exec at SugarCRM, an open source CRM service company. That's something that MediaWiki and Wikinews dev Möller, a programmer who owes his exalted position to being one of the first Wikipedia contributors in 2001, lacks.
There aren't a lot of favourable mentions for Erik from that time. The german news source mentions Erik's threat about removing all admin rights before being blocked himself. In fact, the narrative between the quote above and the german news article doesn't mention Lila at all, and even mentions a change in top leadership might have an affect on actions like these. I can't be the only one with this version of the events? I'm not sure which narrative you think is more revisionist, Erik's own article on en.wp supports my version of the events. Do you believe Erik was taking all this blame internally within the community and externally, only for Lila?
I don't know what happened with the board or what Erik told Lila, neither do you for that matter. And if you followed the recent drama with the board itself, you very well should know how little faith "the board being aware" carries these days. I noticed a reference to other "pet projects", not to mention, Erik had a quick change of title (lower I presume) and then a departure within months from WMF - there is a lot more between the lines. I am not saying Lila wasn't at fault, there were failures there probably of internal leadership and management but on policy it wasn't as many failures or as large as the years before. Consider now, what damage Knowledge engine did that can't be undone? what lasting legacy will remain in 2-3 years from now besides internal conflict and outside pressure of this time. Maybe you can't see that yet, so we will have to agree to disagree for now. The narrative we both have could be supported by the facts available. If I am missing any important facts, please correct me with cited sources (and update Erik's page on en.wp as well to reflect the same). This isn't revisionism, it's relativism. Kind regards. Theo10011 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The facts you cite are just fine, but you seem to attach a causal relationship between them for reasons I can't imagine. Yes, Erik implemented Superprotect and was blocked on dewp as a result. But I can't imagine why we should think that connects with his departure many months later. If it did connect, wouldn't the Lila you imagine (the one who couldn't see the problem with Superprotect, but finally did, and therefore had to rid the organization of Erik) have immediately removed Superprotect? She didn't do that. Your narrative doesn't match the facts well; you have to make very strong (and, as Risker suggests, offensive) assumptions about Lila's impotence for it to hold up. And we do know that others in the organization, both on the board and among Lila's staff, advocated against Superprotect. Board members have repeatedly stated that it was within her purview to make the decision. -Pete F (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
As I said, the facts (public ones at least) are limited. What we have is conjecture and gaps that can fill conflicting narratives. I don't know if I'm the only one who seems to recall things much differently - Erik was overwhelmingly blamed by all parties connected, or we can at least agree, he initiated the mediaviewer installation in a poor way. Lila's failure was what exactly? To disagree publicly with her only deputy and executive of almost 10 years - she should have done what exactly? - disagreed? admonished? fired? the only remaining executive openly and in that instance? - I don't know what your expectation is there. There are a lot of variable there like contract length and terms, not to mention staff loyalties and PR to consider - you make it out to be far too simple as failure of leadership. Indisputable facts are - Erik was demoted and left eventually while Superprotect was never used again until its removal - For what reasons we can make guesses, we also didn't see repeat of the same language and threats from Erik (like all admin rights can be removed from wiki).
As I said, one large shortcoming I saw in Lila was the inability to recognise revolt(s) and the implication thereof - repeatedly. If you read the archives of this page, you will see hundreds of comments (including mine) about Flow - editors begging her to abandon it, turn it off - she refused, she asked for bugs and trials/tests and said I will not abandon it until she "dogfood" it (or something to that effect) herself and was satisfied it wasn't salvageable. It took several months for the announcement to happen, when she agreed to abandon Flow. You say I am making assumptions for Lila - and yes, I agree, I am basing on what I saw and it makes sense. There's a lot of grey area there with little public information. You can form one narrative and I can dispute it with another. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of the responsibilities of Media Viewer: it was Fabrice's project, and his boss was Howie. I think Howie may have reported to Erik, I'm not certain. Erik ended up playing a significant role in the deployment, but it does not follow that decisions were his -- or that the short-term decisions he might have made, fully defined the long-term decisions that followed. As far as what Lila should have done if she disagreed with Erik's decisions, she should have simply overruled. That's pretty straightforward in an organization.
If your statements about Lila's lack of involvement are mere guesses, we have no quarrel. Guess whatever you like. But your words above, "The Whole superprotect debacle at de.wp happened under Erik, not lila," sounded a lot stronger to me than a mere guess. -Pete F (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of regimented chain of command you are following in a transitionary period and blaming a few week old executive at the top, for actions from staff of several years but ok. You also don't notice that most(all) of the people you mention are gone. Then there are full ramifications of "overruling" Erik - it wouldn't be an easy task to do publicly with a board, community and about 200 staff watching (most hired by, and answering to Erik). What happened instead was - no further usage of superprotect and final removal after Erik's move.
I stand by my words. There are no statements or facts to the contrary to disprove - only gossip and personal statements. If there is something I am missing, please correct me. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
A word or two, fwiw. I don't approve of playing the blame game on this; what matters is moving forward, and yes it's important to try to understand what went wrong in the past, but I don't think the problems of the past were, in their essence, mistakes merely by individual people. As I see it, Lila walked into the middle of a high-level-corporate culture already catastrophically ill — severe misconceptions of the role of the volunteer community, the role of the Foundation, and the role of the software design, to start with — and she failed to realize how bad the situation was; whether or not you can or should "blame" her for not realizing is kind of irrelevant. As an individual person, she seems to have understood that some changes were needed, but I'd say she failed to understand most of what was needed, and underestimated the size of the problem by perhaps an order of magnitude or more. Individuals come and go, but the cultural problems are like metastasized cancer, almost impossible to get rid of. --Pi zero (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Well said, Pi zero. Very much agree. -Pete F (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)