4 ms·

If some more people leave, presumably the foundation can go back to hosting Wikipedia and funding the occasional project to improve it, after extensive user inp

If some more people leave, presumably the foundation can go back to hosting Wikipedia and funding the occasional project to improve it, after extensive user input. You know, instead of this playing startup thing.

chris_wot 11y ago
There was never a problem with developing new technology. It was the outrageous dissembling and secrecy around the Knowledge Engine that has caused this problem. You cannot go into an organization with such an extreme ethos around transparency and openness as the WMF and get away with secretly coming up with a plan to compete against Google. That's what was done, and I don't care who on the Board say it wasn't ever a plan to compete against Google with a search engine made by the WMF: that was the plan cooked up by Damon, and I'm certain Lila kept going with it, even when Damon left.
- wl 11y ago
  What about Flow? Media Viewer? Visual Editor? The "extensive user input" came after the code was already written and the community didn't like the result.
  - araneae 11y ago
    VE was a Sue Gardner thing. Hate or love it, it had nothing to do with Lila.
    - wl 11y ago
      And Media Viewer was in development before Lila came around, even if she did preside over its release. I'm not really interested in blaming individuals. The point is that the Wikimedia Foundation as an organization has a history of pushing projects the community doesn't want. A different kind of executive director might move the foundation back towards more of a support role for the community. Of course, that's not going to happen unless the makeup of the board of directors changes drastically.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        I think that's not entirely accurate. The VE was wanted, and clearly is needed. There have been valid concerns around Wikimarkup that lead to a less than great UX experience for many editors, and it is a barrier to entry. It was discussed for a long time when I was active in the community. People who were active in the community championed it. The execution seems to have been less than successful. The way that some things were introduced were also less than stirling. Rolling do,etching like the VE on a shoestring budget is also quite difficult, on such a massive project. Sue didn't always get things right, and during her tenure mistakes were made. She was, IMO, amazing though. When she left, she had bedded down an amazing amount of important processes, including governance and other important organizational matters. Her technical skills weren't perhaps as good as her other skills (but actually, they weren't that bad really). There were issues that needed addressing by the next ED, but there always will be matters that need addressing! Nobody leaves an organization in 100% perfect running order. Lila has not only left the WMF with issues, she has destroyed a good deal of trust, and left the WMF's governance, openness and transparency in tatters.
- samstave 11y ago
  What was the "personnel" (not personal) issue under which he left - sexual harassment or something?
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Even if I knew, I couldn't and wouldn't say. That would be unethical and illegal. But Damon was definitely going around with secret plans to compete with Google. And he had a number of odd, almost paranoid, emails to the foundation ML with what looks like hashes of documents.
    - samstave 11y ago
      Thanks - thats really odd to me. The whole timeline reads really weird to me as well - with people entering and exiting the WMF so fast - I am of the external subjective opinion that at least some of them were simply extracting money from the WMF. It reads as if they may have negotiated some exit packages and literally just took them. That is a LONG list of "directors" which I could be completely off-base here, but unless the env was far more toxic than is being presented, SOME of these people certainly extracted personal value from being there a short period. The fucked up bit though is none of that; it is that wikipedia is now a foundation of who we are digitally as a species, and to see that there is SIGNIFICANT apparent risk to it falling apart is extraordinarily alarming to me. One of the emails sent said that the risk to domain/innate/tech memory leaving with the exodus impending from eng is super scary prospect. If I were someone well monied at Google, I'd step in and buy the whole ordeal as it is a major part of who we now are, both digitally and organically.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        You can't buy Wikipedia :-) but you are right, it's fucked up. Lila and the a majority of the Board of Trustees have taken something amazing and pissed it away. The entire BoT should be disbanded, new members appointed and Jimmy Wales should take a break for 6-12 months and have no direct say in anything or participate in any way, then come back. His "Founder" status should be modified to allow for greater accountability.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  While I agree that transparency at Wikimedia is a definite concern, your tone seems to indicate competing with Google is a bad thing. Given Google has taken historic disregard for consumers to new heights this year, pushing real organic results off the visible screen before you scroll, and that Google scrapes Wikipedia data to serve users for profit, that it'd be right in Wikipedia's culture to offer a freer alternative. Though, as you say, Wikipedia's culture also requires openness as well.

chris_wot 11y ago

There was never a problem with developing new technology. It was the outrageous dissembling and secrecy around the Knowledge Engine that has caused this problem. You cannot go into an organization with such an extreme ethos around transparency and openness as the WMF and get away with secretly coming up with a plan to compete against Google. That's what was done, and I don't care who on the Board say it wasn't ever a plan to compete against Google with a search engine made by the WMF: that was the plan cooked up by Damon, and I'm certain Lila kept going with it, even when Damon left.

wl 11y ago
What about Flow? Media Viewer? Visual Editor? The "extensive user input" came after the code was already written and the community didn't like the result.
- araneae 11y ago
  VE was a Sue Gardner thing. Hate or love it, it had nothing to do with Lila.
  - wl 11y ago
    And Media Viewer was in development before Lila came around, even if she did preside over its release. I'm not really interested in blaming individuals. The point is that the Wikimedia Foundation as an organization has a history of pushing projects the community doesn't want. A different kind of executive director might move the foundation back towards more of a support role for the community. Of course, that's not going to happen unless the makeup of the board of directors changes drastically.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      I think that's not entirely accurate. The VE was wanted, and clearly is needed. There have been valid concerns around Wikimarkup that lead to a less than great UX experience for many editors, and it is a barrier to entry. It was discussed for a long time when I was active in the community. People who were active in the community championed it. The execution seems to have been less than successful. The way that some things were introduced were also less than stirling. Rolling do,etching like the VE on a shoestring budget is also quite difficult, on such a massive project. Sue didn't always get things right, and during her tenure mistakes were made. She was, IMO, amazing though. When she left, she had bedded down an amazing amount of important processes, including governance and other important organizational matters. Her technical skills weren't perhaps as good as her other skills (but actually, they weren't that bad really). There were issues that needed addressing by the next ED, but there always will be matters that need addressing! Nobody leaves an organization in 100% perfect running order. Lila has not only left the WMF with issues, she has destroyed a good deal of trust, and left the WMF's governance, openness and transparency in tatters.
samstave 11y ago
What was the "personnel" (not personal) issue under which he left - sexual harassment or something?
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Even if I knew, I couldn't and wouldn't say. That would be unethical and illegal. But Damon was definitely going around with secret plans to compete with Google. And he had a number of odd, almost paranoid, emails to the foundation ML with what looks like hashes of documents.
  - samstave 11y ago
    Thanks - thats really odd to me. The whole timeline reads really weird to me as well - with people entering and exiting the WMF so fast - I am of the external subjective opinion that at least some of them were simply extracting money from the WMF. It reads as if they may have negotiated some exit packages and literally just took them. That is a LONG list of "directors" which I could be completely off-base here, but unless the env was far more toxic than is being presented, SOME of these people certainly extracted personal value from being there a short period. The fucked up bit though is none of that; it is that wikipedia is now a foundation of who we are digitally as a species, and to see that there is SIGNIFICANT apparent risk to it falling apart is extraordinarily alarming to me. One of the emails sent said that the risk to domain/innate/tech memory leaving with the exodus impending from eng is super scary prospect. If I were someone well monied at Google, I'd step in and buy the whole ordeal as it is a major part of who we now are, both digitally and organically.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      You can't buy Wikipedia :-) but you are right, it's fucked up. Lila and the a majority of the Board of Trustees have taken something amazing and pissed it away. The entire BoT should be disbanded, new members appointed and Jimmy Wales should take a break for 6-12 months and have no direct say in anything or participate in any way, then come back. His "Founder" status should be modified to allow for greater accountability.
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
While I agree that transparency at Wikimedia is a definite concern, your tone seems to indicate competing with Google is a bad thing. Given Google has taken historic disregard for consumers to new heights this year, pushing real organic results off the visible screen before you scroll, and that Google scrapes Wikipedia data to serve users for profit, that it'd be right in Wikipedia's culture to offer a freer alternative. Though, as you say, Wikipedia's culture also requires openness as well.