James Heilman removed from WMF board

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
kołdry
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kumioko » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:12 pm

Vigilant wrote:I'm wondering what Wil Sinclair makes of all of these comments. Wil?
The Executive Leadership is really lacking. The Executive Director unveils a new strategy every three months or so. She completely abandons the previous strategy and then does nothing to actually follow through on the strategy. In short, there is no strategy – only organizational confusion. It is a massive failure in leadership.

We need a new Executive Director. Most C-Level executives have fled. We will not be able to attract top talent until there is new leadership at the very top.
Many of these reviews are from current employees during 2015...
Yeah it really says a lot about how the employees feel about leadership.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by The Joy » Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:10 pm

tarantino wrote:Terry Chay, former director of features engineering, talks about job churning at the foundation on Quora.
Sounds like an endless soap opera. :blink:
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:35 am

As this progresses further and I do more poking around, I'm coming to the conclusion that the removal of Heilman is an attempt by the BoD to squash another BoD member's attempt to look into WMF staff dissatisfaction.

If that turns out to be the case, this miniature Night of the Long Knives will detonate into something the WMF won't be able to keep out of the mainstream press.

First rule of dealing with bad PR: Get it all out as early as possible and deal with it.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:23 am

Vigilant wrote:First rule of dealing with bad PR: Get it all out as early as possible and deal with it.
First rule of Jimbo Wales: Only Jimbo may personally profit off Wikipedia.

Second rule of Jimbo Wales: Always disobey Vigilant's First rule of dealing with bad PR.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:09 am

The remaining board members have posted an FAQ

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:23 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:The remaining board members have posted an FAQ
:shellgame:
This is not a signature.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13983
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Zoloft » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:35 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:The remaining board members have posted an FAQ
:shellgame:
Zoloft, commenting on the blog, wrote:Anthony, thank you for that link to the FAQ.

Reading it and squinting a bit, it translates to:

“Dr. Heilman rocked the boat, stirred up some uncomfortable facts, and had the audacity to speak to WMF employees in the course of performing his duties. The rest of the Board asked him to cease these unsettling activities.

We decided he was likely to do this again, and more ‘Community’ Board members were about to take their seats. We didn’t want them to get any ideas about ‘reform’ or ‘transparency’ (the real versions, not weasel words).

So we got rid of him.

We welcome the new members, and proudly display Dr. Heilman’s head on a pike. Stay in line, guys.”

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kumioko » Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:27 am

To me, the fact that the WMF board saw the need to even create an FAQ reflects that they knew they had stepped over a line and needed to do some damage control.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:04 am

Zoloft wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:The remaining board members have posted an FAQ
:shellgame:
Zoloft, commenting on the blog, wrote:Anthony, thank you for that link to the FAQ.

Reading it and squinting a bit, it translates to:

“Dr. Heilman rocked the boat, stirred up some uncomfortable facts, and had the audacity to speak to WMF employees in the course of performing his duties. The rest of the Board asked him to cease these unsettling activities.

We decided he was likely to do this again, and more ‘Community’ Board members were about to take their seats. We didn’t want them to get any ideas about ‘reform’ or ‘transparency’ (the real versions, not weasel words).

So we got rid of him.

We welcome the new members, and proudly display Dr. Heilman’s head on a pike. Stay in line, guys.”
Sounds about right.
Excise the cancer before it spreads to the new members.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by HRIP7 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:16 am

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80744.html
Liam wrote:Congratulations to Kelly and Arnon in joining the wikiverse at this crucial
time in our movement's existence. I hope their expertise - respectively in
Finance and HR - will be able to be put to good use!

However, I do have a concern about diversity...
Both of these appointees are white Americans from Iowa/Kansas with
top-pedigree Silicon Valley resumes.

I note that one of the other appointed WMF-board seats is currently also
occupied by Guy, also Silicon Valley, and one of the recently elected
community seats is occupied by Denny, who is a manager at Google. They all
live and work in the same field and within commuting distance to the WMF
office.

I've always believed that Wikimedia is an education charity that happens to
exist exists in a technology field. I often note in presentations that I
give that the Wikimedia vision statement does NOT use the words, Internet,
or Wiki, or Encyclopedia. But these appointments indicate the Board and WMF
Executive believe Wikimedia is a technology charity that happens to exists
in the education field.

These appointments will make a crucial difference to how the new WMF
strategic direction will go - and clearly the leadership is wanting to make
us act more like a Californian dot-com and less like a global education
charity. Less "community consensus building" and more "move fast and break
things" - is the message I am reading here.

Can the board please address how it accounts for the geographical
proximity and professional-background similarity between three of the four
Board-appointed seats? And, whether you would define the WMF as a "tech
organisation"?

- Liam / Wittylama
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80745.html
I wrote:I note we now have on the board:

* Jimmy Wales, who has served as a member of Google's "Advisory Council"
* Denny Vrandecic, who is a Google employee
* Guy Kawasaki, who has served as special advisor to the CEO of the
Motorola business unit of Google
* Kelly Battles of Bracket Computing, which partners with Google Cloud
Platform
* Arnnon Geshuri, who served as Senior Director of HR and Staffing at Google

Did I miss anyone?

The Foundation is also acquiring something of a Tesla connection.

Boryana Dineva, the Wikimedia Foundation VP of Human Resources, was
previously Head of HR Systems, HR Operations & Data Analytics at Tesla
Motors. Arnnon Geshuri currently serves as VP of Human Resources at Tesla.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Google are linked through Google's $900 million
investment in Musk's SpaceX,[1] and Google's $280 million investment in
Musk's SolarCity.[2]

The Wikimedia Foundation's top decision-making body is now run by
corporates, while James Heilman has been turfed out.

And it seems that Bill Beutler's crystal ball was in good working order
when he prophesied that Google would begin to play a bigger role in
Wikimedia development in 2016.[3]

I expect further developments will bear him out.


[1] http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/googl ... -1b-round/
[2] http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/14/technol ... /index.htm
[3] http://www.beutlerink.com/blog/ten-pred ... a-in-2016/

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:22 am

That's funny.

I've met Denny Vrandecic while gaming.

He's in google knowledge graph.
I'm sure having his fingers in wikipedia's board is a boon to google.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by The Joy » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:32 am

Kumioko wrote:To me, the fact that the WMF board saw the need to even create an FAQ reflects that they knew they had stepped over a line and needed to do some damage control.
They really don't know when to shut up, do they? I'm surprised the board's lawyer isn't yelling "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! :frustrated:"
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:49 am

The Joy wrote:
Kumioko wrote:To me, the fact that the WMF board saw the need to even create an FAQ reflects that they knew they had stepped over a line and needed to do some damage control.
They really don't know when to shut up, do they? I'm surprised the board's lawyer isn't yelling "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! :frustrated:"
They hired a Chief Communications Officer.
Let her do her damn job, you morons.
I've worked around the world in various capacities, nearly all directly related to advancing fundamental rights and open and free societies. Before joining the Wikimedia Foundation, I was Advocacy Director for the international digital rights organization Access in Washington DC, where I worked on global policy issues related to freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy.

Previously, I held roles supporting the efforts of citizens and governments around the world to embrace transparency and civic technologies, working with activists and human rights defenders on the use of technology to support democratic reforms and human rights, and designing ICT4D programs in support of community development. I'm a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, and my writing on human rights, technology, and foreign policy has appeared in various publications, as well as in State Power 2.0 (Ashgate 2013). More available on my LinkedIn page.
Oh wait, you hired a lightweight. Never mind; carry on.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:20 am

Becoming increasingly obvious that Wikimedia is, for all intents and purposes, a subsidiary of Google.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:30 am

Kelly Martin wrote:Becoming increasingly obvious that Wikimedia is, for all intents and purposes, a subsidiary of Google.
I believe you misspelled 'maquiladora'.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by eagle » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:56 am

WMF FAQ on Firing Heilman wrote:Can James be a candidate for a community-selected seat again?

Due to the removal from the Board, James is not eligible to be a candidate for the Board until the 2017 community selection process. Under the Bylaws, the Board oversees the rules and procedures for the community-selection process. If the Board determines that a candidate does not meet eligibility criteria, it may decline to appoint the candidate to the Board.
This important point was included to respond to several people who have suggested that Heilman run again. The issue never came up before, and represents the first public stance by the WMF Board that it has a "veto" power over the Community's selection of the Community Trustees. Now, many states (and I assume that Florida is one of them) impose a minimum age requirement on serving as a director of a corporation. If the Community elected a Trustee and it turns out that after the election, the Board discovers that the Trustee-elect was only 16 years old, then it could refuse to seat that person. It is not clear to me where the Board has the right to pass judgment on the candidate that meets all of the legal requirements and received the highest number of votes. Consider these scenarios:
* The Community elects someone based on him self-identifying that he has a PhD in divinity and holds a professorship, but after the election we discover that he is really Essjay. Can the Board refuse to seat him?
* The Community re-elects someone without regard to the fact that the candidate is ineligible due to the recently-enacted term limits. Can the Board refuse to seat him?
* The Community rejects and gives a vote of no-confidence to the Board by re-electing Heilman. Does the Board have some basis to not seat him? Why does the above quote say Heilman can run after 2017 but not in 2016?

I think that it would be difficult for the WMF to argue in court that this is a Board appointed slot based on a community-election and not a community-elected slot. There is a lot of merit to the argument that a community vote is needed to remove a community-elected Trustee.
WMF FAQ on Firing Heilman wrote:Why are Trustees appointed?

The Wikimedia Foundation bylaws were written in accordance with Florida law and nonprofit governance best practices to serve the unique characteristics of our movement. The Wikimedia Foundation is not legally a "membership organization" — we work to serve the full public and all audiences. The Bylaws allow the community to select some seats in order to ensure the Board retains community experience, and serves the international, decentralized nature of the Wikimedia community.
They don't do a convincing job of dancing around this issue. One can have a community vote on a Trustee without being a formal "membership organization."

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by The Joy » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:02 am

Kelly Martin wrote:Becoming increasingly obvious that Wikimedia is, for all intents and purposes, a subsidiary of Google.
Wouldn't the Googlers be pushing the WMF to improve and reorganize instead of staying the course? Wouldn't they be the radical reformers on the board?
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:29 am

The Joy wrote:Wouldn't the Googlers be pushing the WMF to improve and reorganize instead of staying the course? Wouldn't they be the radical reformers on the board?
I wouldn't think so, personally. But even if they were, this incident is more of a demonstration of the WMF Board's resistance to transparency, i.e., they don't want anyone to know what they're considering or why they're doing what they're doing. To the extent that Googlers are driving the WMF bus, they're likely to be the ones making the most emphatic push for secrecy, whether or not they want administrative improvements or some sort of reorganization.

Let's also not assume the WMF is some sort of major power/territory-grab by Google. I suspect their main, and maybe sole, concern is that Wikipedia (esp. the English one) just continue to provide them with a reasonably spam-free "go-to" search result for common terms like it always has, and it doesn't matter too much to them if the pages themselves contain some inaccurate information as long as it doesn't get completely out of control. Until WP shows signs of not providing that basic functionality, I doubt Google would want to rock the boat, so their people on the Board are probably there "just in case" - which is to say they wouldn't form a tight voting bloc unless Google's interests were directly threatened in some way. This whole business with "Doc James" Heilman may actually be the first time anything like that has ever happened.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:47 pm

Well, well, well...

Someone from the audit committee has a very different view as to why Heilman got the boot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _community

full quote included to avoid the dreaded revdel.
Hi - my name isn't familiar to most of you,* but I'm another community member and I spoke to James when he visited San Francisco a couple months ago. James [Heilman] was an early mentor of mine when I was editing medical topics a number of years ago, so it was natural for us to meet up for coffee.

As a nonvoting community member of the WMF Audit Committee, I get to see some privileged information and talk to the auditors once a year. If I recall correctly, James thought I might have been receiving emails about some sort of financial situation. When I said no, he didn't reveal any information about what the situation was, but if I recall correctly he said that the board wasn't letting him view some documents.

I'm not a lawyer, but the general rule, mostly codified in state statutes, is that all board members have an equally absolute right to inspect and copy all books and records. See Martin G. McGuinn Jr. 1966 which notes that "a large number of courts have ... termed this right absolute and unqualified". So I told him his rights. We've never talked about it since. The announcement of his dismissal came as a huge shock to me, but I imagine James asserted his rights to some of the board's discomfort.

I did come away with a question mark about what the situation might be and I figured I would bring it up at the next audit meeting (which hasn't happened), but as a nonvoting member I'm really not in a position to rock the boat or demand sensitive information. I can make gentle suggestions and ask questions, but I'm really just there as a courtesy. I imagine this message may spell the end of my tenure.

Commenting on the three points:

1. Putting a few pieces together, it appears that much of the dispute centers around staff relationships. According to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WM ... iscouraged staff were forbidden to communicate to board members, which implies that there was also an unwritten rule strongly discouraging board members from reaching out to staff as well. Yeah, it's a convention to funnel all communication through the ED, but it's not necessarily a good one. In any case, the board needs to survey staff (quantitatively and qualitatively) to effectively review the Executive Director's performance. Further, this makes WMF sound like a fear-driven organization ("fear is the mind-killer"). The best employees - especially the developers - can easily find other jobs. In any case, we in the community are free to talk to staff all we - and they - want. It's hard to keep things secret in the wiki-world, even if the WMF seems to have done a pretty good job so far. If necessary, the community can organize a group to conduct surveys of willing employees and send it to the board, although I hope that won't be necessary.

2. As far as releasing private information, if anyone got something private, you might think I would have gotten something juicy sitting across a table from James, but I didn't. If the WMF had good evidence of disclosing private information, you'd think they would have revealed it by this point. Also, while there is a convention that "what happens in the boardroom stays in the boardroom", my understanding is that non-executive session discussions are not confidential. Which is not to suggest that James was describing board meetings to people.

3. While James has a great rebuttal, his announcement about his dismissal came after the fact, and it isn't worth cluttering up the more important substantive conversations with it any more.

Incidentally, on the topic of director democracy and its rarity among nonprofits, Dent (2014) concluded in the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law that "NPO boards are effectively self-perpetuating. If the director primacists are correct, the governance of NPOs should be a model of wise, long-term management effected by officers who are clearly subordinate to the board. In fact, however, a remarkable consensus of experts on NPOs agrees that their governance is generally abysmal, considerably worse than that of for-profit corporations". Just because a practice is common doesn't mean it is a best practice.

I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007 under a pseudonym but joined the Wikimedia Audit Committee as a nonvoting community volunteer a year and a half ago. I monitor lots of RSS feeds so I noticed a solicitation by the chair Stu West and submitted an application detailing my accounting and board experience.I monitor but don't really too involved in administrative aspects of Wikipedia. If you connect the dots to my username, please keep it to yourself even tho it's not a big secret.
References: 1. Martin G. McGuinn Jr., Right of Directors to Inspect Corporate Books and Records, 11 Vill. L. Rev. 578 (1966). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu ... l11/iss3/6

2. Dent, George W., Corporate Governance Without Shareholders: A Cautionary Lesson from Non-Profit Organizations (2014). Delaware Journal of Corporate Law (DJCL), Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-34. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2481646

Sincerely, Ben Creasy http://bencreasy.com/

(emphasis added —t.d.)
This looks like something the California Attorney General should be investigating.

What say you, wikipediots?


Edit:
Pete Forsyth's blog is also pretty pointed.
http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/

It also happens to include the least attractive photo of Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov I have ever seen.
Image
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:03 am

Vigilant wrote:This looks like something the California Attorney General should be investigating.
Florida. WMF is still incorporated in Florida, even though its principal place of business is California.

User avatar
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by HRIP7 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:16 am

Doc James on Jimbo talk

https://archive.is/FBrOz
Documents concerning long term strategy were not kept from me in the end. Others were. And yes I was asked to keep the long term strategy documents secret after suggesting they be made more widely known and discussed. I have kept the documents secret.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13983
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:32 am

HRIP7 wrote:Doc James on Jimbo talk

https://archive.is/FBrOz
Documents concerning long term strategy were not kept from me in the end. Others were. And yes I was asked to keep the long term strategy documents secret after suggesting they be made more widely known and discussed. I have kept the documents secret.
Long term strategy documents of a major charity should not be secret, right? Do I have that right?

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13983
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:38 am

I just called a friend who helps run a state Red Cross chapter.

"Do you keep the charity's long term strategy documents secret?"

"No, we author them and post them on the website." *reads me the URL* "Why do you ask?"

"I'm reading about a charity that is keeping some of theirs secret."

"That seems... abnormal. I think we'd come under a lot of criticism for that."

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:54 am

Fractally incompetent.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kumioko » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:39 am

Kelly Martin wrote:
Vigilant wrote:This looks like something the California Attorney General should be investigating.
Florida. WMF is still incorporated in Florida, even though its principal place of business is California.
With the servers located in Virginia and Chapters scattered all over and editors contributing internationally...what a mess!

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:48 am

Kumioko wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Vigilant wrote:This looks like something the California Attorney General should be investigating.
Florida. WMF is still incorporated in Florida, even though its principal place of business is California.
With the servers located in Virginia and Chapters scattered all over and editors contributing internationally...what a mess!
And Heilman and others international.
Makes you wonder just what kind of tangled jurisdictional mess might be introduced if one were of a mind to sue.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Cla68
Habitué
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:43 pm
Wikipedia User: Cla68

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Cla68 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:14 am

Once Dr. Heilman realized that he has been permanently blacklisted from being a WMF insider, he should be a very good interview subject on the inner workings of the WMF.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Poetlister » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:08 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Vigilant wrote:This looks like something the California Attorney General should be investigating.
Florida. WMF is still incorporated in Florida, even though its principal place of business is California.
With the servers located in Virginia and Chapters scattered all over and editors contributing internationally...what a mess!
And Heilman and others international.
Makes you wonder just what kind of tangled jurisdictional mess might be introduced if one were of a mind to sue.
Don't the terms of use say that everything is subject to the laws of California?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:46 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
The Joy wrote:Wouldn't the Googlers be pushing the WMF to improve and reorganize instead of staying the course? Wouldn't they be the radical reformers on the board?
I wouldn't think so, personally. But even if they were, this incident is more of a demonstration of the WMF Board's resistance to transparency, i.e., they don't want anyone to know what they're considering or why they're doing what they're doing. To the extent that Googlers are driving the WMF bus, they're likely to be the ones making the most emphatic push for secrecy, whether or not they want administrative improvements or some sort of reorganization.

Let's also not assume the WMF is some sort of major power/territory-grab by Google. I suspect their main, and maybe sole, concern is that Wikipedia (esp. the English one) just continue to provide them with a reasonably spam-free "go-to" search result for common terms like it always has, and it doesn't matter too much to them if the pages themselves contain some inaccurate information as long as it doesn't get completely out of control. Until WP shows signs of not providing that basic functionality, I doubt Google would want to rock the boat, so their people on the Board are probably there "just in case" - which is to say they wouldn't form a tight voting bloc unless Google's interests were directly threatened in some way. This whole business with "Doc James" Heilman may actually be the first time anything like that has ever happened.
I'm somehow reminded of the !! affair. The Googlites might approve, but it's long been par for the course in Jimboland.
This is not a signature.

User avatar
AnimuAvatar
Critic
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:33 am

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by AnimuAvatar » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:23 pm

Vigilant wrote: full quote included to avoid the dreaded revdel.
...
I would have used an archive. Don't get me wrong, I trust that you wouldn't have edited the message to suit some agenda or the other. However, others might be lest trusting. Should the edit be revdeled, and you don't have an archived copy, what's stopping people from accusing you of fabricating things? In any case, I went ahead and archived the diff where Tim put it in.

Of course, there's also the mailing list link where it was posted. Again, archived for posterity.

Midsize Jake wrote: Let's also not assume the WMF is some sort of major power/territory-grab by Google. I suspect their main, and maybe sole, concern is that Wikipedia (esp. the English one) just continue to provide them with a reasonably spam-free "go-to" search result for common terms like it always has, and it doesn't matter too much to them if the pages themselves contain some inaccurate information as long as it doesn't get completely out of control. Until WP shows signs of not providing that basic functionality, I doubt Google would want to rock the boat, so their people on the Board are probably there "just in case" - which is to say they wouldn't form a tight voting bloc unless Google's interests were directly threatened in some way. This whole business with "Doc James" Heilman may actually be the first time anything like that has ever happened.
:agree:
Let's not forget that Google (back when it was still Google and not Alphabet), did try their own Wikipedia competitor Knol (T-H-L), and failed. One interesting quote I noticed from the article,
Cedric Dupont (Google Product Manager) wrote: “Google is very happy with Wikipedia being so successful. Anyone who tries to kill them would hurt us.”
Via The NYT

I'd say Jake's hypothesis is pretty close to the mark, if not hitting the bull's-eye.
>greentext
>on a Wikipedia criticism board
ishygddt

User avatar
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by HRIP7 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:45 pm

Exchanges between Jimmy Wales and James Heilman:

https://archive.is/7vXB2#selection-12669.0-12669.53

See also the preceding section about Arnnon Geshuri, where Jimmy Wales is being grilled by Cullen328. Again questions about due diligence.

Wales' response, as usual:
Don't believe the false narrative.

User avatar
Moral Hazard
Super Genius
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Moral Hazard » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:57 pm

The appointment of a Google conspirator and Apple lacky like Arnnon Geshuri would have rightly infuriated employees, especially competent technical people or persons wishing to be treated fairly. Maybe Heilman raised concerns about Arnnon "I conspire to depress the salaries of employees" Geshuri, after being tipped off by WMF staff?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon

User avatar
Mason
Habitué
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Mason » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:08 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Exchanges between Jimmy Wales and James Heilman:

https://archive.is/7vXB2#selection-12669.0-12669.53
So the kabuki dance continues, with both parties declining to state in plain English what exactly happened, but continuing to go on and on about it in vague terms that enlighten no one.

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:10 pm

Poetlister wrote:Don't the terms of use say that everything is subject to the laws of California?
That applies to your relationship with the WMF as a customer. It has no bearing on its corporate governance, which is irrevocably tied to Florida.

User avatar
Moral Hazard
Super Genius
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Moral Hazard » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:28 pm

Floquenbeam essentially called Wales a liar to his face, twice, on Wales's talk page.
I'm not sure the "one of us is lying, and since I have the better track record in transparency and telling the truth, everyone will just see that" approach is going to work very well here, because it is based on an incorrect premise.
--Floquenbeam (T-C-L)(talk) 15:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If you mean James is trying that argument, then I agree with you. If you mean that I'm trying that argument... well, I'm confused why you should think that. I bought you testimony unanimously agreed to by the entire board - 9 people. They are all very well known to the community in various ways.
--Jimbo Wales (T-C-L) (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, thats rather the point. I think your view of the community's opinion of the board is at odds with the community's actual opinion on the board. I am not sure relying on 'these people are trustworthy' when there are quite a few skeletons lurking in closets that the community is aware of is the right tack to be taking.
Only in death does duty end (T-C-L) (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
None of those people are known to me, and I'm the one deciding what my opinion is on this. There's one person who I have reason to think (based on observing past behavior) is generally honest and interested in transparency. There are 8 people I know nothing about, except that they are pretty much a walled garden issuing generally content-free statements (this last one excepted). And one person I know has been less than honest in the past, but who is using a "he's lying because I/we say he's lying" strategy. This is not going to work for me (which I acknowledge is meaningless to you). Your problem is, I don't think it's going to work for a much larger proportion of editors than you seem to think (which might be meaningless to you too).
--Floquenbeam (T-C-L)15:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =698836765
Maybe this is a time to fork Wikipedia to a new site, with just writers and money for servers without the WMF drama?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:55 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:Maybe this is a time to fork Wikipedia to a new site, with just writers and money for servers without the WMF drama?
Too hard to overcome the incumbency effect. The time to do a fork is before the annual fundraising campaign, not after it.

User avatar
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:01 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Exchanges between Jimmy Wales and James Heilman:

https://archive.is/7vXB2#selection-12669.0-12669.53

See also the preceding section about Arnnon Geshuri, where Jimmy Wales is being grilled by Cullen328. Again questions about due diligence.

Wales' response, as usual:
Don't believe the false narrative.

When Jimbo says... "My own preference, as expressed to him repeatedly, is that he live up to the values of honesty and transparency that are core to our community, and certainly that he not continue to misrepresent what happened"... it is completely comical, considering who is typing those words.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
The Adversary
Habitué
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
Location: Troll country

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by The Adversary » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:38 am

James Hellman at list-l:
Hey All

Here is my statement of apology which I sent to my fellow board members Dec
19, 2015 and which has been commented on by a number of them on this list:
[...snip...]
Follow-up :
> Our board made the decision to give Lila a
> second chance in the face of staff mistrust.

Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this?

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by tarantino » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:54 am

The natives are restless, for sure.

Liam Wyatt's blog post from today, Strategy and controversy.

User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by eagle » Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:39 am

Kelly Martin wrote:
Moral Hazard wrote:Maybe this is a time to fork Wikipedia to a new site, with just writers and money for servers without the WMF drama?
Too hard to overcome the incumbency effect. The time to do a fork is before the annual fundraising campaign, not after it.
Today, a fork is possible because the Mediawiki software is open source and all of the database has been licensed by the contributors. We do not know if the Knowledge Engine software will be open source or how the Knowledge Engine database will be licensed.

This is a very interesting trend. A large base of volunteers have gathered a lot of the world's knowledge. The original model, created by Messrs. Wales and Sanger, is that the collection should be delivered in the form of an encyclopedia.

Then, IBM's Watson, Apple's Siri, and Microsoft Cortana came forward and created proprietary natural language systems to use Wikipedia (plus other data sources) to provide access to general knowledge in way far more attractive than a text encyclopedia.

The question becomes would a fork away from the WMF be possible once Wikipedia shifts away from a Mediawiki based "encyclopedia?" Even if the entire Wikipedia community shifted to working on the folk, would the user interface of the Knowledge Engine keep the user traffic (and the Google juice) with the WMF after the shift?

Conversely, if the world of information seekers is shifting away from a text encyclopedia model to access information, does anyone seriously believe that the WMF technical staff (even if enhanced by the Knight Foundation grant) can compete with the best that IBM, Apple and Microsoft will continue to develop?

This is a very serious problem that Mr. Wales, Lila, Doc James and seven others can not solve by themselves locked into a secret sound-proof chamber.

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kingsindian » Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:09 pm

Google has quite a different purpose than Wikipedia. Suppose Wikipedia's pages ranked a bit lower on any Google search, it might remove some of the perverse behaviour on Wikipedia. Bad behaviour which might be reduced includes the spate of pages covering recentish events (I have one word for you: Gamergate), the focus on creating more and more useless content while lots of old content should be improved ("5 million articles!") etc.

Reducing the google page rank will also put a dent in WMF donations, which would probably be a wake up call or shakeup, which would be generally welcome.

Of course, there is the danger that such a thing would lead to a death spiral.

User avatar
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:03 pm

eagle wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Moral Hazard wrote:Maybe this is a time to fork Wikipedia to a new site, with just writers and money for servers without the WMF drama?
Too hard to overcome the incumbency effect. The time to do a fork is before the annual fundraising campaign, not after it.
Today, a fork is possible because the Mediawiki software is open source and all of the database has been licensed by the contributors. We do not know if the Knowledge Engine software will be open source or how the Knowledge Engine database will be licensed.

This is a very interesting trend. A large base of volunteers have gathered a lot of the world's knowledge. The original model, created by Messrs. Wales and Sanger, is that the collection should be delivered in the form of an encyclopedia.

Then, IBM's Watson, Apple's Siri, and Microsoft Cortana came forward and created proprietary natural language systems to use Wikipedia (plus other data sources) to provide access to general knowledge in way far more attractive than a text encyclopedia.

The question becomes would a fork away from the WMF be possible once Wikipedia shifts away from a Mediawiki based "encyclopedia?" Even if the entire Wikipedia community shifted to working on the folk, would the user interface of the Knowledge Engine keep the user traffic (and the Google juice) with the WMF after the shift?

Conversely, if the world of information seekers is shifting away from a text encyclopedia model to access information, does anyone seriously believe that the WMF technical staff (even if enhanced by the Knight Foundation grant) can compete with the best that IBM, Apple and Microsoft will continue to develop?

This is a very serious problem that Mr. Wales, Lila, Doc James and seven others can not solve by themselves locked into a secret sound-proof chamber.
This is an excellent post, which puts some of the WMF's current troubles in context.

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kumioko » Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:01 pm

Aside from my well known dislike of the WMF's incompetence on many things my simple answer to that question would be, no they can't compete with the likes of Google, Apple or Microsoft, at least not by themselves. If they team up with one or more of these and actually collaborate, then yes its possible, but its not in the WMF's skillset nor do they seem interested in doing this.

The WMF already has a massive volunteer workforce, arguably the largest in history and they are unwilling, incapable and disinterested in even working with them to solve the sites problems. There is distrust between the WMF and the community and that trust almost certainly extends outside the organization as well. That lack of trust is also seen between the paid employees of the WMF and the WMF leadership. Its not just an us and them thing between the WMF and the community.

So, as long as the WMF doesn't value its existing workforce I find it extremely unlikely they would make any long lasting commitment or partnerships outside the organization.

User avatar
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:55 pm

I've quoted Eagle's post on Wikimedia-l and asked some related questions.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80895.html
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at frontier.com> wrote:

> While it depends on the purpose of the grant, for the deliverables
> identified in the original post it seems clear that the most natural costs
> to pay would be salaries in software engineering, broadly speaking. As to
> the comment about how the grant amount aligns with the size and salary cost
> of this particular team - in the grantmaking world, it is entirely normal
> to make awards that pay for only fractions of people's salaries. Let's say
> you pay for 5% of X's salary and 10% of Y's salary, and as part of the
> agreement those people are then expected to spend the corresponding
> percentage of their time dedicated to working on the grant project. I'm
> sure that the Discovery team has more things to work on than just this one
> project, but the reason the Foundation would accept this grant is
> presumably that it overlaps enough with what the organization wants to do
> anyway.



This is confusing. If you look at the Discovery FAQ[1], it says,


------
*"Knowledge Engine" (KE) was an early term used to describe a number of
initiatives that related to search and discovery of content. It was/is not
a product and instead was meant to easily reference what the Discovery team
was focusing on. We've since stopped using the term as it caused confusion.*
------


So the Knowledge Engine is what the Discovery team is all about. The two
terms are described as practically synonymous in the FAQ: the Knowledge
Engine term (now deprecated) was a shorthand way of referring to the
Discovery team's work. From that, it doesn't sound like the Discovery team
has anything else to work on than that.

The Knight Foundation (KF) grant first announced by the Knight Foundation
in September last year[1], and announced by the WMF only a few days ago,
used the same language:


------
*To advance new models for finding information by supporting stage one
development of the Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia, a system for discovering
reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.*
------


To me at least this means that the KF grant was indeed intended to fund the
Discovery team's work, something which the $250,000 named can clearly only
do in part, given the amount of personnel involved. The rest of the funding
thus must claim a share of the Foundation's own resources.

There is an interesting post by "Eagle" on Wikipediocracy,[3] which I
suspect may go some way towards explaining the wider technological
background of the Knowledge Engine effort and the strategic decisions
underlying it:


------
*Today, a fork is possible because the Mediawiki software is open source
and all of the database has been licensed by the contributors. We do not
know if the Knowledge Engine software will be open source or how the
Knowledge Engine database will be licensed. *

*This is a very interesting trend. A large base of volunteers have gathered
a lot of the world's knowledge. The original model, created by Messrs.
Wales and Sanger, is that the collection should be delivered in the form of
an encyclopedia. *

*Then, IBM's Watson, Apple's Siri, and Microsoft Cortana came forward and
created proprietary natural language systems to use Wikipedia (plus other
data sources) to provide access to general knowledge in [a] way far more
attractive than a text encyclopedia. *

*The question becomes would a fork away from the WMF be possible once
Wikipedia shifts away from a Mediawiki based "encyclopedia?" Even if the
entire Wikipedia community shifted to working on the fo[r]k, would the user
interface of the Knowledge Engine keep the user traffic (and the Google
juice) with the WMF after the shift? *

*Conversely, if the world of information seekers is shifting away from a
text encyclopedia model to access information, does anyone seriously
believe that the WMF technical staff (even if enhanced by the Knight
Foundation grant) can compete with the best that IBM, Apple and Microsoft
will continue to develop? *

*This is a very serious problem that Mr. Wales, Lila, Doc James and seven
others can not solve by themselves locked into a secret sound-proof
chamber.*
------


While I am pretty sure that any Knowledge Engine software developed by the
Wikimedia Foundation will be open source (if I am wrong on this, please put
me right!), and am not proposing to initiate a discussion about forking
here, some of what Eagle says about the wider technological background
feels like it might be very relevant to the motivations underlying the
Knowledge Engine (or "Discovery") project.

People looking up Wikipedia on their smartphone in the pub will indeed not
read a long encyclopedia article. They just want a snippet of information.
But does that mean that, given developments like the Knowledge Graph, Siri,
Watson etc., the writing is on the wall for Wikipedia's -- presently at
least -- immensely popular and much-loved encyclopedia format?

I don't understand what happened between the first announcement of the
grant by the KF in September, and the renewed announcement of it now. What
the KF says in its January 6, 2016, announcement[4] has morphed somewhat
from the earlier announcement of 12 months' support for a Knowledge Engine
project designed to enable the public to discover "reliable and trustworthy
public information on the internet."

What the KF is now talking about is funding


------
*exploratory research and prototyping to improve how people find and engage
with knowledge on Wikimedia projects. Knight’s support will fund six months
of investigation around search and browsing on the projects, with the
ultimate goal of building better experiences to help people discover
knowledge*
------


Is this "exploratory research" -- now shortened from twelve to six months
-- what the Wikimedia Foundation pitched for?

Or was the pitch for the more ambitious plans described in the "Discovery
Year 0-1-2" presentation[5] and the Discovery FAQ?[1]

What further stages are envisaged?

Jimmy Wales said on his user talk page yesterday[6] that, in his opinion,
and pending confirmation that there are no contractual reasons standing in
the way of this, the grant letter should be published on Meta, and that "it
would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."

For once, I agree with him. To clear the air completely, the grant
application documentation should be made public as well.

Please draw the public and the community into your confidence on this, and
work with the community rather than in isolation from it.

Andreas

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/FAQ
[2] http://www.knightfoundation.org/grants/201551260/
[3] viewtopic.php?p=169310#p169310
[4]
http://www.knightfoundation.org/blogs/k ... -projects/
[5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _0-1-2.pdf
[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =698860874

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:43 pm

eagle wrote:This is a very interesting trend. A large base of volunteers have gathered a lot of the world's knowledge. The original model, created by Messrs. Wales and Sanger, is that the collection should be delivered in the form of an encyclopedia.

Then, IBM's Watson, Apple's Siri, and Microsoft Cortana came forward and created proprietary natural language systems to use Wikipedia (plus other data sources) to provide access to general knowledge in way far more attractive than a text encyclopedia.

The question becomes would a fork away from the WMF be possible once Wikipedia shifts away from a Mediawiki based "encyclopedia?" Even if the entire Wikipedia community shifted to working on the folk, would the user interface of the Knowledge Engine keep the user traffic (and the Google juice) with the WMF after the shift?

Conversely, if the world of information seekers is shifting away from a text encyclopedia model to access information, does anyone seriously believe that the WMF technical staff (even if enhanced by the Knight Foundation grant) can compete with the best that IBM, Apple and Microsoft will continue to develop?

This is a very serious problem that Mr. Wales, Lila, Doc James and seven others can not solve by themselves locked into a secret sound-proof chamber.
The problem that any sort of "more advanced" presentation of knowledge presents is that any such effort would require the involvement of experts, who can find ways to winnow through information to extract knowledge. Crowdsourcing never produces knowledge. Crowdsourcing produces data, and sometimes information; it takes expertise to extract knowledge from information, and Wikipedia simply has no capability to attract or utilize expertise. You can't crowdsource expertise. Wikipedia contains no knowledge.

I don't think Wikipedia can move past the "text based" model of collaboration. While there are other models that can work, they rely too much on participatory models where individuals will participate in roles that are inherently discommensurate, and you'll end up with lots of people who want to be the data architect who aren't qualified, and not enough people willing to be data validators, to get the job done. While it's possible that this could be done in an organization that marries qualified experts with interested volunteers, neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia have ever shown any interest or competency in doing so. The group that has come the closest to doing so within the Wikipedia sphere was arguably the Wikiproject Medicine group, and that group's leader was just ejected from the Wikimedia Board of Directors....

Fundamentally, I think there needs to be more understanding, within Wikimedia, not only of "how people use Wikipedia?" (the ostensible purpose of the Knight grant) but also "why do people contribute to Wikimedia projects?" before Wikimedia undertakes any contemplation of changing either its purpose or its means of completion of its purpose. The reality, I suspect, is that while Wikimedia claims to exist to create a repository of human knowledge, I suspect that a majority of those who contribute to Wikimedia projects are doing so for reasons that have little to do with creating such a repository. If Wikimedia changes its purpose or its means in ways incompatible with the reasons why people participate, they will lose participants, and they will have to be careful not to lose so many as to lose critical mass and the network effect that flows therefrom.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Poetlister » Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:25 pm

Kingsindian wrote:Of course, there is the danger that such a thing would lead to a death spiral.
I think that is likely. I also suspect that many here would regard that as a welcome development rather than a danger!
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by tarantino » Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:42 am

Damon Sicore emerges to support Doc James.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80913.html
To All,

Just to mark this moment, or maybe remind those who paid attention when I
published these, some long before I vanished in silence:

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-0/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-1/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-2/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-3/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-4/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-5/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-6-the-mistake/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-the-stand/

I trust James Heilman. I support the community.

:)

Yours faithfully,
Damon Sicore
aka: gnubeard, ex-vp of eng, and briefly head of product, WMF

User avatar
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:20 am

Slashdot submission: http://slashdot.org/submission/5441793/ ... -wikipedia
As Wikipedia is about to turn 15 years old, relations between the volunteer community and the Wikimedia Foundation board have reached a new nadir. First, Dr James Heilman, an immensely popular volunteer noted for his energetic efforts to make Wikipedia's medical articles more trustworthy, was expelled from the board, causing wide-spread protests. Then it transpired that Wikimedia is working on a secretive "Knowledge Engine" project funded by a restricted grant from the Knight Foundation, leading to calls for more transparency about the project. Lastly, a few days ago the board announced the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri, former Senior Director of HR and Staffing at Google, to the Wikimedia board, provoking a further loss of confidence. The volunteers are pointing to Geshuri's past involvement in anticompetitive hiring agreements at Google, which led to a class-action lawsuit resulting in a $415 million settlement. They want Geshuri gone.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13983
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: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:25 am

Code: Select all

Proof: The Stand

748C4ABF C28EC17C EBFA8C19 2E82562D 8B81ECF3 FD963AC0 31282BBB
919E56E3 4E0A3137 923CCB46 98B96A8C 23C54D10 EF096096 7F50CC72
ADC07A2F 8F7430C4
:twilightzone:

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: James Heilman removed from WMF board

Unread post by The Joy » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:41 am

tarantino wrote:Damon Sicore emerges to support Doc James.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 80913.html
To All,

Just to mark this moment, or maybe remind those who paid attention when I
published these, some long before I vanished in silence:

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-0/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-1/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-2/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-3/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-4/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-5/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-6-the-mistake/

https://damon.sicore.com/proof-the-stand/

I trust James Heilman. I support the community.

:)

Yours faithfully,
Damon Sicore
aka: gnubeard, ex-vp of eng, and briefly head of product, WMF
Image
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

Post Reply