Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Women
- Triptych
- Retired
- Posts: 1910
- kołdry
- Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:35 am
- Wikipedia User: it's alliterative
Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Women
Like Risker pointed out, brand new WMF Executive Director Lila Tretikov today was chosen as #99 on prominent, longstanding, influential Forbes magazine's list of "power women." Although I'm not aware she's actually done anything there yet, let's nevertheless extend an hurrah to her. Yay!
Famous Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren (#100) was whooped by Tretikov who was in turn edged by Beth Brooke-Marciniak (#98, "Global Vice Chair - Public Policy, Ernst & Young").
In case you don't believe me: https://archive.today/oes21.
Famous Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren (#100) was whooped by Tretikov who was in turn edged by Beth Brooke-Marciniak (#98, "Global Vice Chair - Public Policy, Ernst & Young").
In case you don't believe me: https://archive.today/oes21.
Triptych. A Live Journal I have under other pseudonym, w. email address: Tim Song Fan. My Arbcom Accountability Project: in German. In art.
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Just barely sliding in to home base. Does anyone want to place any bets on next year?Triptych wrote:Like Risker pointed out, brand new WMF Executive Director Lila Tretikov today was chosen as #99 on prominent, longstanding, influential Forbes magazine's list of "power women." Although I'm not aware she's actually done anything there yet, let's nevertheless extend an hurrah to her. Yay!
Famous Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren (#100) was whooped by Tretikov who was in turn edged by Beth Brooke-Marciniak (#98, "Global Vice Chair - Public Policy, Ernst & Young").
In case you don't believe me: https://archive.today/oes21.
I kid, but I'm actually beamingly proud of her.
,Wil
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
As long as she beat out Donald Trump, that's all that really matters.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Let's see what should does.wllm wrote:Just barely sliding in to home base. Does anyone want to place any bets on next year?Triptych wrote:Like Risker pointed out, brand new WMF Executive Director Lila Tretikov today was chosen as #99 on prominent, longstanding, influential Forbes magazine's list of "power women." Although I'm not aware she's actually done anything there yet, let's nevertheless extend an hurrah to her. Yay!
Famous Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren (#100) was whooped by Tretikov who was in turn edged by Beth Brooke-Marciniak (#98, "Global Vice Chair - Public Policy, Ernst & Young").
In case you don't believe me: https://archive.today/oes21.
I kid, but I'm actually beamingly proud of her.
I don't have particularly high hopes, but I am prepared to be amazed.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Yeah it should be interesting to see where she is on the list next year. She could eaither really do a great job and clean house and turn things around or just continue to let things fester. and stay at #99.Vigilant wrote:Let's see what should does.wllm wrote:Just barely sliding in to home base. Does anyone want to place any bets on next year?Triptych wrote:Like Risker pointed out, brand new WMF Executive Director Lila Tretikov today was chosen as #99 on prominent, longstanding, influential Forbes magazine's list of "power women." Although I'm not aware she's actually done anything there yet, let's nevertheless extend an hurrah to her. Yay!
Famous Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren (#100) was whooped by Tretikov who was in turn edged by Beth Brooke-Marciniak (#98, "Global Vice Chair - Public Policy, Ernst & Young").
In case you don't believe me: https://archive.today/oes21.
I kid, but I'm actually beamingly proud of her.
I don't have particularly high hopes, but I am prepared to be amazed.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
I'm your Huckleberry.wllm wrote:Does anyone want to place any bets on next year?
She gets absorbed into the collective and nothing changes.
I wager my left eyebrow against yours.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
What was Sue Gardner's highest ranking on that list?Triptych wrote:Like Risker pointed out, brand new WMF Executive Director Lila Tretikov today was chosen as #99 on prominent, longstanding, influential Forbes magazine's list of "power women."
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Sue Gardner was at #70 last year, I read second-hand somewhere. True she had been at it for six years, though.Kumioko wrote: Yeah it should be interesting to see where she is on the list next year. She could eaither really do a great job and clean house and turn things around or just continue to let things fester. and stay at #99.
Triptych. A Live Journal I have under other pseudonym, w. email address: Tim Song Fan. My Arbcom Accountability Project: in German. In art.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72184.html
Thanks Anders for the advice -- I will look into those. Maintaining freedom of speech is especially close to my heart.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
And she was pretty complacent at changing the anything to fight the corruption of the WMF and the projects. She may be a nice person, but she seemed utterly incompetent when it comes to running a business and making the hard decisions for the betterment of the company.Triptych wrote:Sue Gardner was at #70 last year, I read second-hand somewhere. True she had been at it for six years, though.Kumioko wrote: Yeah it should be interesting to see where she is on the list next year. She could eaither really do a great job and clean house and turn things around or just continue to let things fester. and stay at #99.
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12061
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
I don't think Lila T. has enough political capital to make any wholesale changes in Year One. She has a learning curve to navigate and there are some powerful entrenched players. It's not like she is the new CEO installed via a board takeover; she has to play nice with the powers that be to get anything done.
I think Sue Gardner was pretty good and hope Ms. Tretikov will be pretty good, in the same vein. She has danced around her first minor crisis, the "Wil Has Consorted With The Enemy" affair admirably.
We'll see how things evolve.
RfB
I think Sue Gardner was pretty good and hope Ms. Tretikov will be pretty good, in the same vein. She has danced around her first minor crisis, the "Wil Has Consorted With The Enemy" affair admirably.
We'll see how things evolve.
RfB
- HRIP7
- Denizen
- Posts: 6953
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
- Wikipedia User: Jayen466
- Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
- Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
- Location: UK
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
In the end, Lila takes directions from the board. She can make an impact, but that depends on her ability to convince the board members, the Wikimedia community, the press and the public of the wisdom of any initiative she wants to take. The board has the final word, and they are (in part at least) elected by the community.
She shouldn't underestimate the impact of the press and public opinion, though. If the press and public speak with a strong enough voice of approval (or disapproval), the community will eventually follow, even if it goes against the grain. If she wants to solve any of the intractable problems Wikimedia has so far been unable to solve, those are the resources she will have to mobilise.
She shouldn't underestimate the impact of the press and public opinion, though. If the press and public speak with a strong enough voice of approval (or disapproval), the community will eventually follow, even if it goes against the grain. If she wants to solve any of the intractable problems Wikimedia has so far been unable to solve, those are the resources she will have to mobilise.
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Left eyebrow it is!Vigilant wrote:I'm your Huckleberry.wllm wrote:Does anyone want to place any bets on next year?
She gets absorbed into the collective and nothing changes.
I wager my left eyebrow against yours.
Now, to up the stakes somewhat, I propose a few additional spoils of wager: A professionally framed portrait of the left eyebrow glued carefully eyebrow shape in a manner that is befitting public display that the winner can display anywhere he chooses. A photo proving that the left eyebrow of the loser has indeed been shaven with an autograph reading "To Lila, my Eyebrow is a Small Sacrifice to your Awesome" or "I, Wil Sinclair, Submit to Your Awesome, Vigilant," respectively. A public statement that is posted as a new thread on this site entitled: "I have Shaven my Left Eyebrow Because Lila is So Awesome/Not Awesome Enough," respectively. The sole content of the first message should read: "Now please ridicule me."
Do we have a deal?
,Wil
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Conditionally.wllm wrote:Left eyebrow it is!Vigilant wrote:I'm your Huckleberry.wllm wrote:Does anyone want to place any bets on next year?
She gets absorbed into the collective and nothing changes.
I wager my left eyebrow against yours.
Now, to up the stakes somewhat, I propose a few additional spoils of wager: A professionally framed portrait of the left eyebrow glued carefully eyebrow shape in a manner that is befitting public display that the winner can display anywhere he chooses. A photo proving that the left eyebrow of the loser has indeed been shaven with an autograph reading "To Lila, my Eyebrow is a Small Sacrifice to your Awesome" or "I, Wil Sinclair, Submit to Your Awesome, Vigilant," respectively. A public statement that is posted as a new thread on this site entitled: "I have Shaven my Left Eyebrow Because Lila is So Awesome/Not Awesome Enough," respectively. The sole content of the first message should read: "Now please ridicule me."
Do we have a deal?
Who shall sit in judgement?
If I win, I want my picture of your missing eyebrow to say "I, Wil Sinclair, state for the record: Wikipedia and the WMF Suck". My win, my title choice.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Alison
- Habitué
- Posts: 1074
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:28 pm
- Wikipedia User: Alison
- Wikipedia Review Member: Alison
- Actual Name: Alison Cassidy
- Location: Cupertino, CA, USA ... maybe
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
If I win, I want my picture of your missing eyebrow to say "I, Wil Sinclair, state for the record: Wikipedia and the WMF Suck". My win, my title choice.
And with ten guests watching this thread, that's quite a set of witnesses
-- Allie
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Forbes. It depends entirely on whether she is ranking < 99 (my upside) vs. > 99 or unranked (your upside). If there is any question of indecision, we'll take an informal poll on WO with the result determining the winner. If WO is tied, we shall flip a coin at the fountains in the San Jose park with whatever witnesses care to observe. They will be allowed to take photographs.Vigilant wrote:Conditionally.wllm wrote:Left eyebrow it is!Vigilant wrote:I'm your Huckleberry.wllm wrote:Does anyone want to place any bets on next year?
She gets absorbed into the collective and nothing changes.
I wager my left eyebrow against yours.
Now, to up the stakes somewhat, I propose a few additional spoils of wager: A professionally framed portrait of the left eyebrow glued carefully eyebrow shape in a manner that is befitting public display that the winner can display anywhere he chooses. A photo proving that the left eyebrow of the loser has indeed been shaven with an autograph reading "To Lila, my Eyebrow is a Small Sacrifice to your Awesome" or "I, Wil Sinclair, Submit to Your Awesome, Vigilant," respectively. A public statement that is posted as a new thread on this site entitled: "I have Shaven my Left Eyebrow Because Lila is So Awesome/Not Awesome Enough," respectively. The sole content of the first message should read: "Now please ridicule me."
Do we have a deal?
Who shall sit in judgement?
If I win, I want my picture of your missing eyebrow to say "I, Wil Sinclair, state for the record: Wikipedia and the WMF Suck". My win, my title choice.
You know I can't take any position on Wikipedia on or the WMF. How about "I, Wil Sinclair, state for the record: I suck"? And I sign it with a glitter pen, affixing a shiny unicorn sticker somehow also incorporating a rainbow to said testament? I will also post a picture of said photo on my blog at http://wllm.com. What say you?
Last edited by wllm on Fri May 30, 2014 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
,Wil
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
No. We are bettingabout how far Lila will get Iin terms if the WMF. Failure for her to get anywhere is a victory condition for me and must be reflected in the winnings.wllm wrote:You know I can't take any position on Wikipedia on or the WMF. How about "I, Wil Sinclair, state for the record: I suck"? And I sign it with a glitter pen, affixing a shiny unicorn sticker somehow also incorporating a rainbow to said testament? I will also post a picture of said photo on my blog at http://wllm.com.Vigilant wrote:Conditionally.wllm wrote:Left eyebrow it is!Vigilant wrote:I'm your Huckleberry.wllm wrote:Does anyone want to place any bets on next year?
She gets absorbed into the collective and nothing changes.
I wager my left eyebrow against yours.
Now, to up the stakes somewhat, I propose a few additional spoils of wager: A professionally framed portrait of the left eyebrow glued carefully eyebrow shape in a manner that is befitting public display that the winner can display anywhere he chooses. A photo proving that the left eyebrow of the loser has indeed been shaven with an autograph reading "To Lila, my Eyebrow is a Small Sacrifice to your Awesome" or "I, Wil Sinclair, Submit to Your Awesome, Vigilant," respectively. A public statement that is posted as a new thread on this site entitled: "I have Shaven my Left Eyebrow Because Lila is So Awesome/Not Awesome Enough," respectively. The sole content of the first message should read: "Now please ridicule me."
Do we have a deal?
Who shall sit in judgement?
If I win, I want my picture of your missing eyebrow to say "I, Wil Sinclair, state for the record: Wikipedia and the WMF Suck". My win, my title choice.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
I edited this above, but then realized it might not reach our full audience. That's right, Vigilant. You and me- eyebrow to eyebrow. It's on!wllm wrote:Forbes. It depends entirely on whether she is ranking < 99 (my upside) vs. > 99 or unranked (your upside). If there is any question of indecision, we'll take an informal poll on WO with the result determining the winner. If WO is tied, we shall flip a coin at the fountains in the San Jose park with whatever witnesses care to observe. They will be allowed to take photographs.
You know I can't take any position on Wikipedia on or the WMF. How about "I, Wil Sinclair, state for the record: I suck"? And I sign it with a glitter pen, affixing a shiny unicorn sticker somehow also incorporating a rainbow to said testament? I will also post a picture of said photo on my blog at http://wllm.com. What say you?
,Wil
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12061
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
You guys should bet on whether she gets over or under #85 or so on the Forbes list next year.
That would seem like a reasonable proposition, assuming Gardner was #70 after 6 years — a benchmark for whether she got anything done this year or faded into the background.
Vigilant's proposition is too subjective.
RfB
That would seem like a reasonable proposition, assuming Gardner was #70 after 6 years — a benchmark for whether she got anything done this year or faded into the background.
Vigilant's proposition is too subjective.
RfB
- thekohser
- Majordomo
- Posts: 13406
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
- Wikipedia User: Thekohser
- Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
- Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
The Forbes ranking is not a fair measurement of Lila's success at the WMF at all, because all Wil would have to do is murder all but the world's final 98 women, and then Lila is assured of an increase in rank. Likewise, Vigilant could capture and hold hostage in a subterranean warehouse the entire staff of Forbes for a year, such that they are unable to publish a 2015 ranking. With standards of judgment so simple to game, it's just an unwise wager.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
OK, I'll agree to #85 with the same terms.Randy from Boise wrote:You guys should bet on whether she gets over or under #85 or so on the Forbes list next year.
That would seem like a reasonable proposition, assuming Gardner was #70 after 6 years — a benchmark for whether she got anything done this year or faded into the background.
Vigilant's proposition is too subjective.
RfB
,Wil
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12061
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Betting an eyebrow on anything is unwise.thekohser wrote:...it's just an unwise wager.
But assuming that you, like I, feel that these two unwise gentlemen should have a face off, so to speak — would you say that +/- 85 on the Forbes list next year is a reasonable proposition?
RfB
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Randy from Boise aka Carrie aka Tim is not a party to, nor a judge of, thus contest.wllm wrote:OK, I'll agree to #85 with the same terms.Randy from Boise wrote:You guys should bet on whether she gets over or under #85 or so on the Forbes list next year.
That would seem like a reasonable proposition, assuming Gardner was #70 after 6 years — a benchmark for whether she got anything done this year or faded into the background.
Vigilant's proposition is too subjective.
RfB
I am on a shitty phone at the moment.
I will think further but I do not view Forbes rank as a reasonable metric for deciding facial hair removal.
Additionally, I am not giving up my anonimity. The "community" having contacted someone's employer in an attempt to get someone fired.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
If I wanted any shit from you, I would squeeze your head.Randy from Boise wrote:Betting an eyebrow on anything is unwise.thekohser wrote:...it's just an unwise wager.
But assuming that you, like I, feel that these two unwise gentlemen should have a face off, so to speak — would you say that +/- 85 on the Forbes list next year is a reasonable proposition?
RfB
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
OK, Greg, you've found the flaw in the whole wager. Actually, not really, I believe Vigilant and I live in the same region. The consequences for any illegal behavior are largely the same for both of us and should not be spared under any circumstances.. I'm not clarifying major offenses to begin with, because I know that Vigilant is acting in good faith, but one of us has a set of decidedly looser lips. So, your move. . . C'mon, Vigilant, let's do this!thekohser wrote:The Forbes ranking is not a fair measurement of Lila's success at the WMF at all, because all Wil would have to do is murder all but the world's final 98 women, and then Lila is assured of an increase in rank. Likewise, Vigilant could capture and hold hostage in a subterranean warehouse the entire staff of Forbes for a year, such that they are unable to publish a 2015 ranking. With standards of judgment so simple to game, it's just an unwise wager.
,Wil
- thekohser
- Majordomo
- Posts: 13406
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
- Wikipedia User: Thekohser
- Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
- Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
What if in her spare time Lila cures testicular cancer? Surely, Forbes would then put her at #8 or maybe even #7, but it would have had nothing to do with her failure to implement reasonable child protection, image filtering, and content review measures at the Wikimedia projects. I'm telling you now, this whole bet will come down to both of you claiming in May 2015 that the "other guy" lost, and then pointing to any number of measures that support your claim.
If both of you are crazy enough to take the over-under of #85, though, who am I to stand in the way of your eyebrows? I just don't think Vigilant will agree to letting Forbes tell us about how powerful the leader of the Wikimedia Foundation is. This is the same Forbes that ranked Jimmy Wales as the #12 "Web Celeb" over #23 Jason Calacanis, and we know how ridiculous that is, because according to Celebritynetworth.com, Wales is worth only $1M, compared to Calacanis' $20M.
If both of you are crazy enough to take the over-under of #85, though, who am I to stand in the way of your eyebrows? I just don't think Vigilant will agree to letting Forbes tell us about how powerful the leader of the Wikimedia Foundation is. This is the same Forbes that ranked Jimmy Wales as the #12 "Web Celeb" over #23 Jason Calacanis, and we know how ridiculous that is, because according to Celebritynetworth.com, Wales is worth only $1M, compared to Calacanis' $20M.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
The wager Mr. Vigilant was trying to make was whether or not Ms. Tretikov would make a positive difference at the WMF, presumably from his perspective. The idea that Forbes.com could be the arbiter of this is completely absurd. Frankly, this talk amounts to a derailment of this thread, not that it looked so promising to begin with.
Most people, when they get into a new job, find a niche. Lila Tretikov's niche is probably going to be software; she may talk a fair amount about the gender gap, but like her predecessor she'll find there's nothing she can do about the gender gap. Indeed, many of the software projects the WMF has embarked on recently were rationalized as a means of dealing with the gender gap by making the site "easier" for women, which is something women should perhaps feel rather insulted by. (I suspect many of them do feel insulted, and are just too nice to make an issue of it.)
What I'm saying is that software isn't going to fix much of anything. The problem lies with the people, and if she isn't planning to do something about the people (and I'm sorry, but in many cases that will mean "fire," "ban," or "eliminate whatever role or personal fiefdom serves as the person's source of power and influence"), she's not going to fix much, at least not from the perspectives of most people here.
So if that's the bet, I'm afraid Mr. Vigilant is probably safe in betting whatever region of hair-growth he wants. Even in the unlikely event that Ms. Tretikov aspires to reach the point where she'd be able to make the kinds of changes that are required, it's not going to happen in the first year.
Most people, when they get into a new job, find a niche. Lila Tretikov's niche is probably going to be software; she may talk a fair amount about the gender gap, but like her predecessor she'll find there's nothing she can do about the gender gap. Indeed, many of the software projects the WMF has embarked on recently were rationalized as a means of dealing with the gender gap by making the site "easier" for women, which is something women should perhaps feel rather insulted by. (I suspect many of them do feel insulted, and are just too nice to make an issue of it.)
What I'm saying is that software isn't going to fix much of anything. The problem lies with the people, and if she isn't planning to do something about the people (and I'm sorry, but in many cases that will mean "fire," "ban," or "eliminate whatever role or personal fiefdom serves as the person's source of power and influence"), she's not going to fix much, at least not from the perspectives of most people here.
So if that's the bet, I'm afraid Mr. Vigilant is probably safe in betting whatever region of hair-growth he wants. Even in the unlikely event that Ms. Tretikov aspires to reach the point where she'd be able to make the kinds of changes that are required, it's not going to happen in the first year.
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Vigilant, there seems to be consensus that you have the advantage. What say you?
In case you need a little motivation. . .
In case you need a little motivation. . .
,Wil
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
BTW, Lila said something about her being the youngest on that list. I can't figure out how to verify that. If anyone can find a link that confirms (or dispells) this, please paste it into this thread.
,Wil
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Just glancing at it myself, if she is under 50, she probably is. There are a lot of women on the list who have been around for a long time.
- Kelly Martin
- Habitué
- Posts: 3368
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
- Location: EN61bw
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
While I agree with your argument that there's nothing she can do with software to fix the gender gap, the Elliot Rodger situation has created a potential opening to do something about the culture. But she'll have to reach for it.Midsize Jake wrote:Most people, when they get into a new job, find a niche. Lila Tretikov's niche is probably going to be software; she may talk a fair amount about the gender gap, but like her predecessor she'll find there's nothing she can do about the gender gap.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
I predict she lacks the moral fortitude to do what's obviously correct.Kelly Martin wrote:While I agree with your argument that there's nothing she can do with software to fix the gender gap, the Elliot Rodger situation has created a potential opening to do something about the culture. But she'll have to reach for it.Midsize Jake wrote:Most people, when they get into a new job, find a niche. Lila Tretikov's niche is probably going to be software; she may talk a fair amount about the gender gap, but like her predecessor she'll find there's nothing she can do about the gender gap.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- lilburne
- Habitué
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
- Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
- Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Line up a new job, and in a year announce moving on as the place is not only awful but irredeemable.Vigilant wrote: I predict she lacks the moral fortitude to do what's obviously correct.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
- eppur si muove
- Habitué
- Posts: 1972
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:28 pm
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Try http://www.forbes.com/power-women/#tab:youngest Most of the people on that page are slebs.wllm wrote:BTW, Lila said something about her being the youngest on that list. I can't figure out how to verify that. If anyone can find a link that confirms (or dispells) this, please paste it into this thread.
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Wanna bet your other eyebrow on it?Vigilant wrote:I predict she lacks the moral fortitude to do what's obviously correct.Kelly Martin wrote:While I agree with your argument that there's nothing she can do with software to fix the gender gap, the Elliot Rodger situation has created a potential opening to do something about the culture. But she'll have to reach for it.Midsize Jake wrote:Most people, when they get into a new job, find a niche. Lila Tretikov's niche is probably going to be software; she may talk a fair amount about the gender gap, but like her predecessor she'll find there's nothing she can do about the gender gap.
,Wil
- wllm
- Critic
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm
- Wikipedia User: wllm
- Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Lila told me it was youngest in *tech*. Yesterday I didn't pick up on that. Half the time I'm only half listening. I don't envy Lila in trying to have discussions with me. :/
,Wil
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
1) Child protection policy lifted form best practices and enforced.wllm wrote:Wanna bet your other eyebrow on it?Vigilant wrote:I predict she lacks the moral fortitude to do what's obviously correct.Kelly Martin wrote:While I agree with your argument that there's nothing she can do with software to fix the gender gap, the Elliot Rodger situation has created a potential opening to do something about the culture. But she'll have to reach for it.Midsize Jake wrote:Most people, when they get into a new job, find a niche. Lila Tretikov's niche is probably going to be software; she may talk a fair amount about the gender gap, but like her predecessor she'll find there's nothing she can do about the gender gap.
2) Opt out, default-to-delete BLP deletion policy for semi-notable people who don't want an article.
3) Increase women's' participation to 35%
4) Restructure WMF engineering to resemble a real group.
5) Reform AN/ANI/Arbcom
How long?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Do you think there's a way she can use the current wave of anti-misogynist sentiment, in the wake of the Elliot Rodger murders, to help change the misogynist culture of Wikipedia and other WMF sites? First of all, is she that creative, and if so, does she have the chutzpah to actually try it? And second, can she handle the counter-wave fallout that would almost certainly be involved?wllm wrote:Wanna bet your other eyebrow on it?
I daresay the percentage of male core-group Wikipedians who are actually misogynists (and not just accused of it to win edit-wars) is relatively small - maybe 10 percent or so. But that's still about 300 people, all actively fighting against positive change on a daily basis, all over the site. And you don't know who they are, what they're really capable of, what they're thinking about doing at any given time.
By far, the path of least resistance is to do what Sue Gardner did - which was, in effect, nothing. (Unless you consider the VisualEditor debacle to be "something," which no sane or honest person would.)
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Even that 10% might be more aptly designated as misanthropists.Midsize Jake wrote:Do you think there's a way she can use the current wave of anti-misogynist sentiment, in the wake of the Elliot Rodger murders, to help change the misogynist culture of Wikipedia and other WMF sites? First of all, is she that creative, and if so, does she have the chutzpah to actually try it? And second, can she handle the counter-wave fallout that would almost certainly be involved?wllm wrote:Wanna bet your other eyebrow on it?
I daresay the percentage of male core-group Wikipedians who are actually misogynists (and not just accused of it to win edit-wars) is relatively small - maybe 10 percent or so. But that's still about 300 people, all actively fighting against positive change on a daily basis, all over the site. And you don't know who they are, what they're really capable of, what they're thinking about doing at any given time.
By far, the path of least resistance is to do what Sue Gardner did - which was, in effect, nothing. (Unless you consider the VisualEditor debacle to be "something," which no sane or honest person would.)
I consider VE to be a cautionary tale.
Link for Wil's edification. 22 pages, get a cup of tea before you start.
No understanding of what they were trying to build or how to go about it.
Read the RFC. Note the dates. Note the massive opposition.
You really need to read that thread and then ask yourself, "Why are any of these people still employed?"
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12061
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
1. Child protection reform is doable at the WMF level.Vigilant wrote:1) Child protection policy lifted form best practices and enforced.wllm wrote:Wanna bet your other eyebrow on it?Vigilant wrote:I predict she lacks the moral fortitude to do what's obviously correct.Kelly Martin wrote:While I agree with your argument that there's nothing she can do with software to fix the gender gap, the Elliot Rodger situation has created a potential opening to do something about the culture. But she'll have to reach for it.Midsize Jake wrote:Most people, when they get into a new job, find a niche. Lila Tretikov's niche is probably going to be software; she may talk a fair amount about the gender gap, but like her predecessor she'll find there's nothing she can do about the gender gap.
2) Opt out, default-to-delete BLP deletion policy for semi-notable people who don't want an article.
3) Increase women's' participation to 35%
4) Restructure WMF engineering to resemble a real group.
5) Reform AN/ANI/Arbcom
How long?
2. BLP opt out will never happen unless the BLP doves gain even more power on-wiki. It won't happen at WMF level, ever.
3. Increasing female participation BY 35% is possible. Increasing it TO 35% will be a decade.
4. WMF engineering is a clusterfuck. She's the one to help sort it out, but I doubt she has the political clout in Year One. They still think they are gonna make VE a success in SF...
5. The basic structure of AN/ANI/Arbcom ain't changing ever. It will gradually evolve on-wiki.
RfB
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
I concur, Tim.
My eyebrow is safe.
My eyebrow is safe.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Retired
- Posts: 4130
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
- Wikipedia User: Scott
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Talking of WMF's engineers, and management in general, Wil, you might want to have a read of the reviews on Glassdoor of working at the WMF. Some interesting takeaway in there. For example, this in March, from a current employee:
“Amazing mission; incredibly smart employees; completely inept management”
Engineer (Current Employee)
I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than 3 years
Pros – There's so many great engineers at Wikimedia. The problems are hard and fun. There's a big open source culture here. Lots of great travel with opportunity to engage with really amazing community members. Everyone loves Wikipedia, which makes it really easy to network through lots of open source communities. It's possible to come up with ideas and fully implement them, assuming you're willing to fight management for it.
I would still recommend Wikimedia to a friend, while giving them a warning about what to expect. It's hard not to want great people working at Wikimedia. I hope that friends can help turn that ship around.
Culture at Wikimedia is difficult to describe. It's amazing if you consider the mission and the culture around that. I wanted to give Wikimedia 5 stars just for that reason. Meeting the community, going to Wikimania and to the countless global engineering events is incredibly rewarding.
Cons – Management at basically every level of the foundation is terrible. Senior management is so inept that the board should really do something about it. Unfortunately the board is also mostly checked out. The community is heavily negative and completely averse to change, though that may be poor execution of feature launches from the foundation.
You could be curing cancer at Wikimedia and 99% of what you'd hear is why you're an idiot. The rest of the time you'd have 2-3 people saying that your cure isn't good, then they'd all be working on re-implementing your work. and eventually arrive at the same exact solution. You'd get maybe 1-2 compliments. Management would just sit back and watch it occur while the cure took 10 times longer than it would have if they would have facilitated collaboration.
Senior management very often hires incompetent middle managers knowingly against the wishes of the team that manager is going to manage. This is what a large percentage of Wikimedia's turnover is related to. Any reasonable senior management would see this and fire the person hiring the idiots, but it's unfortunately the same people.
Office culture at Wikimedia is absolutely terrible. There's a massive failure in upper management at this level. Almost everything that was once offered in the office is gone because they were "too expensive", all while the upper management has at least three incredibly expensive off-site retreats a year. There's lots of backstabbing, office gossip, political infighting with coworkers trying to get each other fired, and lots of cross-department feuds. It's rare that anyone's work is celebrated and managers often take credit for their employees' work.
Advice to Senior Management – Please leave. Basically all of you have been around for too long and have driven away countless talented employees. Sue helped the organization grow to a reasonable size and got the foundation through its necessary fundraising growth, but she's also been a relatively absentee ED when it comes to Wikimedia Foundation's primary function, which is engineering. She's let Erik run that ship into the ground for years.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Wow.
I'm gonna say this once, "Called it!"
I'm gonna say this once, "Called it!"
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Zoloft
- Trustee
- Posts: 13965
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
- Wikipedia User: Stanistani
- Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
- Actual Name: William Burns
- Nom de plume: William Burns
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
I wonder what sort of progress WMF middle management has made on finding that engineer. Anyone leave in April who fits the description?Hex wrote:Talking of WMF's engineers, and management in general, Wil, you might want to have a read of the reviews on Glassdoor of working at the WMF. Some interesting takeaway in there. For example, this in March, from a current employee:“Amazing mission; incredibly smart employees; completely inept management”
Engineer (Current Employee)
I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than 3 years
Pros – There's so many great engineers at Wikimedia. The problems are hard and fun. There's a big open source culture here. Lots of great travel with opportunity to engage with really amazing community members. Everyone loves Wikipedia, which makes it really easy to network through lots of open source communities. It's possible to come up with ideas and fully implement them, assuming you're willing to fight management for it.
I would still recommend Wikimedia to a friend, while giving them a warning about what to expect. It's hard not to want great people working at Wikimedia. I hope that friends can help turn that ship around.
Culture at Wikimedia is difficult to describe. It's amazing if you consider the mission and the culture around that. I wanted to give Wikimedia 5 stars just for that reason. Meeting the community, going to Wikimania and to the countless global engineering events is incredibly rewarding.
Cons – Management at basically every level of the foundation is terrible. Senior management is so inept that the board should really do something about it. Unfortunately the board is also mostly checked out. The community is heavily negative and completely averse to change, though that may be poor execution of feature launches from the foundation.
You could be curing cancer at Wikimedia and 99% of what you'd hear is why you're an idiot. The rest of the time you'd have 2-3 people saying that your cure isn't good, then they'd all be working on re-implementing your work. and eventually arrive at the same exact solution. You'd get maybe 1-2 compliments. Management would just sit back and watch it occur while the cure took 10 times longer than it would have if they would have facilitated collaboration.
Senior management very often hires incompetent middle managers knowingly against the wishes of the team that manager is going to manage. This is what a large percentage of Wikimedia's turnover is related to. Any reasonable senior management would see this and fire the person hiring the idiots, but it's unfortunately the same people.
Office culture at Wikimedia is absolutely terrible. There's a massive failure in upper management at this level. Almost everything that was once offered in the office is gone because they were "too expensive", all while the upper management has at least three incredibly expensive off-site retreats a year. There's lots of backstabbing, office gossip, political infighting with coworkers trying to get each other fired, and lots of cross-department feuds. It's rare that anyone's work is celebrated and managers often take credit for their employees' work.
Advice to Senior Management – Please leave. Basically all of you have been around for too long and have driven away countless talented employees. Sue helped the organization grow to a reasonable size and got the foundation through its necessary fundraising growth, but she's also been a relatively absentee ED when it comes to Wikimedia Foundation's primary function, which is engineering. She's let Erik run that ship into the ground for years.
My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
- Actual mug ◄
- Uncle Cornpone
- Zoloft bouncy pill-thing
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12061
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Excellent find. Read closely.Hex wrote:Talking of WMF's engineers, and management in general, Wil, you might want to have a read of the reviews on Glassdoor of working at the WMF. Some interesting takeaway in there. For example, this in March, from a current employee:“Amazing mission; incredibly smart employees; completely inept management”
Engineer (Current Employee)
I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than 3 years
Pros – There's so many great engineers at Wikimedia. The problems are hard and fun. There's a big open source culture here. Lots of great travel with opportunity to engage with really amazing community members. Everyone loves Wikipedia, which makes it really easy to network through lots of open source communities. It's possible to come up with ideas and fully implement them, assuming you're willing to fight management for it.
I would still recommend Wikimedia to a friend, while giving them a warning about what to expect. It's hard not to want great people working at Wikimedia. I hope that friends can help turn that ship around.
Culture at Wikimedia is difficult to describe. It's amazing if you consider the mission and the culture around that. I wanted to give Wikimedia 5 stars just for that reason. Meeting the community, going to Wikimania and to the countless global engineering events is incredibly rewarding.
Cons – Management at basically every level of the foundation is terrible. Senior management is so inept that the board should really do something about it. Unfortunately the board is also mostly checked out. The community is heavily negative and completely averse to change, though that may be poor execution of feature launches from the foundation.
You could be curing cancer at Wikimedia and 99% of what you'd hear is why you're an idiot. The rest of the time you'd have 2-3 people saying that your cure isn't good, then they'd all be working on re-implementing your work. and eventually arrive at the same exact solution. You'd get maybe 1-2 compliments. Management would just sit back and watch it occur while the cure took 10 times longer than it would have if they would have facilitated collaboration.
Senior management very often hires incompetent middle managers knowingly against the wishes of the team that manager is going to manage. This is what a large percentage of Wikimedia's turnover is related to. Any reasonable senior management would see this and fire the person hiring the idiots, but it's unfortunately the same people.
Office culture at Wikimedia is absolutely terrible. There's a massive failure in upper management at this level. Almost everything that was once offered in the office is gone because they were "too expensive", all while the upper management has at least three incredibly expensive off-site retreats a year. There's lots of backstabbing, office gossip, political infighting with coworkers trying to get each other fired, and lots of cross-department feuds. It's rare that anyone's work is celebrated and managers often take credit for their employees' work.
Advice to Senior Management – Please leave. Basically all of you have been around for too long and have driven away countless talented employees. Sue helped the organization grow to a reasonable size and got the foundation through its necessary fundraising growth, but she's also been a relatively absentee ED when it comes to Wikimedia Foundation's primary function, which is engineering. She's let Erik run that ship into the ground for years.
RfB
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31431
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
So, Wil,
What's your reading of that review?
What's your reading of that review?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12061
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Here's another interesting one from the same source that Hex cites:
On April 19, 2013, an anonymous current employee wrote: “Dysfunctional”
Anonymous Employee (Current Employee)
I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation
Pros – It's for a good cause and looks good on the resume.
Cons – Management is clueless. I was glad to hear that the current executive director is stepping down. Hopefully, slowly WMF will be able to recover from the damage that she and her cronies did to Wikipedia and its culture.
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12061
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Another interesting one:
On Dec. 27, 2012, an anonymous former employee wrote: “Dysfunctional and disorganized”
Anonymous Employee (Former Employee)
I worked at Wikimedia Foundation full-time
Pros – People care about what they do here. Everyone is passionate about the mission.
Cons – Management is clueless, staffed with people with little to no experience in managing a major technical product. They just emphasize hitting strategic metric promises by 2015 (because that's all they're capable of understanding) rather than focusing on serving our community and users. The executive director doesn't seem to care about the product and only communicates with other higher-ups in terms of the metrics they're hitting rather than taking an interest in what employees are doing. We're small enough such that she doesn't need to do that, yet she does anyway.
Everything is driven by personality. There are a few people that manipulate the organization's direction regularly and do so under the guise of representing the community, but are really just trying to make things happen their way. Day to day interactions are an offshoot of old techy male-dominated mailing list culture, where people are cruel to each other behind the internet and complete wimps in person. Everyone just sits around making excuses to not go the extra mile on whatever they're doing.
People treat product development the same way as they would write a Wiki, which are fundamentally irreconcilable activities.
Lots of undeserved cultural masturbation; if someone doesn't agree with something they are written off as being culturally unfit, rather than letting people question cultural norms which are sacred yet completely dysfunctional. If your culture is so great, why do the most competent people leave? Why are so many people unhappy?
Lots of lazy people on staff who don't do anything and are actively disruptive, yet they're never fired and probably never will be.
Advice to Senior Management – Fire lazy or inept people who cost too much money. Don't repeat hiring the way you have in the past because it's clearly not working. Stop spending so much on global events and leadership retreats and start offering market or above market salaries to new hires so this place can attract better talent.
Crack the whip on laziness.
No, I would not recommend this company to a friend.
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
I agree, I think this and the other quote are both very telling of what its really like working there. We here can comment and speculate but for someone within the castle gates to maek statements like that is pretty profound and telling IMO.Randy from Boise wrote:Excellent find. Read closely.Hex wrote:Talking of WMF's engineers, and management in general, Wil, you might want to have a read of the reviews on Glassdoor of working at the WMF. Some interesting takeaway in there. For example, this in March, from a current employee:“Amazing mission; incredibly smart employees; completely inept management”
Engineer (Current Employee)
I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation full-time for more than 3 years
Pros – There's so many great engineers at Wikimedia. The problems are hard and fun. There's a big open source culture here. Lots of great travel with opportunity to engage with really amazing community members. Everyone loves Wikipedia, which makes it really easy to network through lots of open source communities. It's possible to come up with ideas and fully implement them, assuming you're willing to fight management for it.
I would still recommend Wikimedia to a friend, while giving them a warning about what to expect. It's hard not to want great people working at Wikimedia. I hope that friends can help turn that ship around.
Culture at Wikimedia is difficult to describe. It's amazing if you consider the mission and the culture around that. I wanted to give Wikimedia 5 stars just for that reason. Meeting the community, going to Wikimania and to the countless global engineering events is incredibly rewarding.
Cons – Management at basically every level of the foundation is terrible. Senior management is so inept that the board should really do something about it. Unfortunately the board is also mostly checked out. The community is heavily negative and completely averse to change, though that may be poor execution of feature launches from the foundation.
You could be curing cancer at Wikimedia and 99% of what you'd hear is why you're an idiot. The rest of the time you'd have 2-3 people saying that your cure isn't good, then they'd all be working on re-implementing your work. and eventually arrive at the same exact solution. You'd get maybe 1-2 compliments. Management would just sit back and watch it occur while the cure took 10 times longer than it would have if they would have facilitated collaboration.
Senior management very often hires incompetent middle managers knowingly against the wishes of the team that manager is going to manage. This is what a large percentage of Wikimedia's turnover is related to. Any reasonable senior management would see this and fire the person hiring the idiots, but it's unfortunately the same people.
Office culture at Wikimedia is absolutely terrible. There's a massive failure in upper management at this level. Almost everything that was once offered in the office is gone because they were "too expensive", all while the upper management has at least three incredibly expensive off-site retreats a year. There's lots of backstabbing, office gossip, political infighting with coworkers trying to get each other fired, and lots of cross-department feuds. It's rare that anyone's work is celebrated and managers often take credit for their employees' work.
Advice to Senior Management – Please leave. Basically all of you have been around for too long and have driven away countless talented employees. Sue helped the organization grow to a reasonable size and got the foundation through its necessary fundraising growth, but she's also been a relatively absentee ED when it comes to Wikimedia Foundation's primary function, which is engineering. She's let Erik run that ship into the ground for years.
RfB
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12061
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lila Debuts at #99 of Forbes Magazine's Most Powerful Wo
Man, there is some really good shit here...
On Sept. 23, 2012, an anonymous current employee wrote: “Don't buy into the fluff”
Anonymous Employee (Current Employee)
I have been working at Wikimedia Foundation full-time
Pros – It looks great on the resume. Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites on the Internet, and everyone loves to hear about your work and how the site functions.
Cons – Two words -- Top Management. I have never worked in a place where I have seen such incompetent management. It's anybody's guess how the folks got their jobs. They have no experience or previous credentials to run an organization or website of this magnitude. They keep fumbling from one bad decision to another without any accountability and repercussions. The board is either sleeping or does not care about Wikipedia. To help Wikipedia grow, the top management needs to be replaced. WMF has barely met any of its targets but the top management has not been held anyone accountable.
There is no job security. WMF is a revolving door. People are fired for no reason every month. Every month 2-3 people leave the foundation either fired or leave on their own because they are frustrated. But the management keeps celebrating their culture without even acknowledging that they have talent retention problem. I was not able to figure out why you would hire smart people, make their work hard & frustrating and fire them for no reason.
No, I would not recommend this company to a friend.
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.