Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Sue Gardner's Report to the board
> Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Kato
Here's Sue Gardner's report to the WMF board. (Gardner is Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation).

http://www.nabble.com/Report-to-the-Board-...-p16691227.html

Here she describes how the WMF tried to spin away the tide of anti-Wikipedia activity last month...

QUOTE(Sue Gardner)
MEDIA

Significant staff energy was spent developing responses to various media
and blog coverage (Marsden/Wool/Merkey). The Los Angeles Times and the
New York Times covered Wikimedia's fundraising plans, resulting in a
brief spike of public support. We identified and announced the 10
millionth Wikipedia article, a biography of English painter Nicholas
Hilliard from the Hungarian Wikipedia. Preparations were made for the
launch of an official Wikimedia Foundation blog.


How about "identifying and announcing" the latest travesties from the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard?
dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Sue Gardner)
MEDIA

Significant staff energy was spent developing responses to various media
and blog coverage (Marsden/Wool/Merkey).

Shouldn't that be (Jimbo/Jimbo/Jimbo)?
JohnA
Give Jimbo Wales credit where credit is due. He did identify a fool-proof way for a living person to have their Wiki biography corrected in double quick time*

*providing that the subject is female, has her own teeth and is still breathing.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 16th April 2008, 4:13am) *

Here's Sue Gardner's report to the WMF board. (Gardner is Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation).

Report-to-the-Board-(March)

Here she describes how the WMF tried to spin away the tide of anti-Wikipedia activity last month...

QUOTE(Sue Gardner)

MEDIA

Significant staff energy was spent developing responses to various media and blog coverage (Marsden/Wool/Merkey). The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times covered Wikimedia's fundraising plans, resulting in a brief spike of public support. We identified and announced the 10 millionth Wikipedia article, a biography of English painter Nicholas Hilliard from the Hungarian Wikipedia. Preparations were made for the launch of an official Wikimedia Foundation blog.



Does anyone else get the feeling that developing responsesâ„¢ means "inviting a lot of young and starving mostly-SF-based e-journalists to lunch and/or luau and hypnotizing them with martini-laced mantras about the wunnerful world missionary positions of Wikipedia"?

Jon cool.gif
JohnA
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 16th April 2008, 12:17pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 16th April 2008, 4:13am) *

Here's Sue Gardner's report to the WMF board. (Gardner is Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation).

Report-to-the-Board-(March)

Here she describes how the WMF tried to spin away the tide of anti-Wikipedia activity last month...

QUOTE(Sue Gardner)

MEDIA

Significant staff energy was spent developing responses to various media and blog coverage (Marsden/Wool/Merkey). The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times covered Wikimedia's fundraising plans, resulting in a brief spike of public support. We identified and announced the 10 millionth Wikipedia article, a biography of English painter Nicholas Hilliard from the Hungarian Wikipedia. Preparations were made for the launch of an official Wikimedia Foundation blog.



Does anyone else get the feeling that developing responsesâ„¢ means "inviting a lot of young and starving mostly-SF-based e-journalists to lunch and/or luau and hypnotizing them with martini-laced mantras about the wunnerful world missionary positions of Wikipedia"?

Jon cool.gif


I don't know about the missionary position but Jimbo has definitely specified that one party needs to be on her knees.
Viridae
QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 16th April 2008, 8:42pm) *

Give Jimbo Wales credit where credit is due. He did identify a fool-proof way for a living person to have their Wiki biography corrected in double quick time*

*providing that the subject is female, has her own teeth and is still breathing.


(Status of breath and teeth optional)
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 16th April 2008, 12:56pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 16th April 2008, 8:42pm) *

Give Jimbo Wales credit where credit is due. He did identify a fool-proof way for a living person to have their Wiki biography corrected in double quick time*

*providing that the subject is female, has her own teeth and is still breathing.


(Status of breath and teeth optional)


Quick: Who said about sports: "If a draw is like kissing your sister, then losing is like kissing your grandmother with her teeth out."

Anyway, lack of teeth might in some circumstances be desirable for Jimbo. And (let's complete this thought) how long CAN she hold her breath? ohmy.gif

Gosh we're nasty here, aren't we? ph34r.gif


KStreetSlave
Developing what responses? Their responses were "That's Jimmy's private life, we don't talk about it". They didn't spend time developing shit. Certainly, the proper response would have been to kick Jimmy's ass the fuck out and hire someone less destructive to their media image. Didn't spend much time developing that did they?
dogbiscuit
Wirhout the invective, I am distinctly gaining the impression that Jimbo is no longer a significant element of "the project". On that basis, I would not sweat it.
KStreetSlave
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 17th April 2008, 7:45pm) *

Wirhout the invective, I am distinctly gaining the impression that Jimbo is no longer a significant element of "the project". On that basis, I would not sweat it.


From what I hear, he's not, and very much still in charge.
Somey
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Thu 17th April 2008, 1:12pm) *
Developing what responses? ... They didn't spend time developing shit.

Well, now that you've brought it up, responding to a few media inquiries with "Jimbo's private life is of no concern to the public," having two newspapers run articles about your fundraising plans, running a quick SQL query to find which article ended up being no. 10,000,000, and preparing to start a blog are things that could all be done in one afternoon by, well, just about anybody. Heck, I hear there are scripts that can start over a hundred blogs in less than a minute!

So what did they spend the rest of their time doing? Playing FreeCell and going out for cappucinos? (I mean, that's certainly what I'd be doing...)
Milton Roe
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 17th April 2008, 11:45pm) *

Wirhout the invective, I am distinctly gaining the impression that Jimbo is no longer a significant element of "the project". On that basis, I would not sweat it.

He can still be a significant element by continuing to be obstructionist to the institution of mechanisms which would help fix the project. I don't care if never comes up with another a single new idea: he does quite enough damage by opposing those who do.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 18th April 2008, 2:53am) *

He can still be a significant element by continuing to be obstructionist to the institution of mechanisms which would help fix the project. I don't care if never comes up with another a single new idea: he does quite enough damage by opposing those who do.

Yes, when he's not busy doing nothing, which is just as damaging. He is, at best, the emptiness occupying the space where a leader should be.

Jimbo isn't involved enough with the internal workings of Wikipedia - take the obvious example of WP:AN and WP:ANI - to be a real leader. Not like one always gets a fair version of the truth there, but at least he would see what the issues-du-jour are. Instead you have him parachuting in every once in while, sometimes helpfully, sometimes harmfully.

For that matter, he should open an account over here. Instead you have him demonizing critics that he hasn't taken the time and/or doesn't have the courage to face.

There's my challenge for you, Jimbo. Show up on the noticeboards every day, even if only for half an hour or so. And open an account here on WR.
dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 18th April 2008, 3:53am) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 17th April 2008, 11:45pm) *

Wirhout the invective, I am distinctly gaining the impression that Jimbo is no longer a significant element of "the project". On that basis, I would not sweat it.

He can still be a significant element by continuing to be obstructionist to the institution of mechanisms which would help fix the project. I don't care if never comes up with another a single new idea: he does quite enough damage by opposing those who do.

Yes, though I suppose I am imagining that we are going through a stage where it should be dawning on Wikipedia that there is a void.

My principle is that WMF should be the body to fill that void, and they should step into that role in a public, accountable and ethical fashion.

At the moment, any problems within Wikipedia are supposedly caused by "The Community". The framework of policy Jimbo originally set out was potentially quite functional, it is just that Jimbo quite clearly didn't believe in it (going back to his believe that there were a relative handful of Wikipedians who wrote it, and he believed that this handful was the cabal, and therefore he biased everything to looking after his mates).

If WMF stepped up to the challenge of improving the governance of Wikipedia, then at least we would be able to judge their competence, including the possibility that they recognise that they are not qualified for the role and they identify some other body that is and successfully implement it. At the moment, I just wonder why the WMF are there.
Count DeMonet
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 18th April 2008, 3:49am) *

So what did they spend the rest of their time doing? Playing FreeCell and going out for cappucinos? (I mean, that's certainly what I'd be doing...)



nah! throwing darts at an atlas to pick the venue for their next free Wikimania junket.
thekohser
One essential reason why the WMF has not (and probably will not) hire a Chief Content Officer or the equivalent, is that this would run smack up against the Section 230 protections that the WMF enjoys, precisely thanks to the maintainance of an environment of non-responsiblity for the content on Wikipedia!

Jimbo, therefore, serves a useful function exactly by being the "oh, I'll parachute into this policy debate" guy. He can try to patch up conflicts that threaten to rip apart the volunteer (free labor) community, but in a court of law he could also successfully say "oh, I had no overarching responsibility for Wikipedia's policies or content -- that's the Community's doing; I just occassionally helped out by giving my personal opinion about just a few matters, here and there".

He may not make the best decisions very often, but in the game of hedging his bets and protecting himself by manipulating others to do his bidding -- he's expert.

To understand Jimmy, you just need to understand the Animal In You.
Moulton
Jimbo has Sox Appeal and Animal Anti-Magnetism.
dogbiscuit
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 18th April 2008, 1:41pm) *

One essential reason why the WMF has not (and probably will not) hire a Chief Content Officer or the equivalent, is that this would run smack up against the Section 230 protections that the WMF enjoys, precisely thanks to the maintainance of an environment of non-responsiblity for the content on Wikipedia!

That may be the excuse, but they can be responsible for the rules and guidelines. To take the line of argument you suggest is to say that an ISP acquires responsibility by publishing Acceptable Use Policies.

I don't buy it: Jimbo pierced that vale with his interventions anyhow; but any ISP can set a framework of acceptable use and will censor content in line with those rules.

WMF does not have to manage the processes and procedures, but it should take responsibility for ensuring that there are workable processes in place. You would assume an ethical organisation would want to, anyhow, if only to ensure the goal of producing a top class publication thing that may not be named.
Moulton
WMF is undeniably responsible for the WP:OFFICE rule, as established by Jimbo Wales and endorsed by WMF, whereby WMF asserts and reserves its power to edit content to prevent legal trouble or personal harm.
Random832
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 18th April 2008, 2:49am) *

running a quick SQL query to find which article ended up being no. 10,000,000


Well - I don't know all that much about how the software works, but I'm pretty sure that finding out what article was the 10,000,000th across all wikipedias (as opposed to just one) is rather less trivial than that.

If one were cynical, one might even suppose that it was arbitrarily chosen, rather than actually having been found to any degree of technical certainty. Consider this: [[hu:Nicholas Hilliard]] (historical link to as of the time of the WMF press release) is a reasonably well-developed article on a relatively small (under 100,000 articles) wiki. Statistically, a majority (64.9%) of articles are in English, German, French, Polish, Japanese, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, or Swedish.

That the 10,000,000th article would be a biography of a historical figure on a minor wikipedia is statistically unlikely, but in some ways it is the best wikimedia has to offer. It certainly is a different spin on things than if it had been an article on some band on enwiki that barely scraped by keep on an AFD.

The process could well have been "We need something to distract people - how many articles are there? 10,123,210? Ok, 10M is a nice round number close to that, let's pick an article created about however long ago it's likely to have passed that mark and call that the 10-millionth - get a list of candidates and we'll pick whichever one works best from a PR standpoint"
Moulton
Pick 10 random numbers in the vicinity of 10,000,000, (e.g. 10,000,000 ± 100) and look up the corresponding titles. List them and render your opinion as to their encyclopedic quality.
thekohser
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 18th April 2008, 9:23am) *

The process could well have been "We need something to distract people - how many articles are there? 10,123,210? Ok, 10M is a nice round number close to that, let's pick an article created about however long ago it's likely to have passed that mark and call that the 10-millionth - get a list of candidates and we'll pick whichever one works best from a PR standpoint"


Random, you must have switched to the blue pill this morning! I agree with you completely. Wikipedia tracks article creations by the minute, not the second.

The fact that 10 million articles are in place, on a growth curve, would suggest that at the time of the "true" 10-millionth article, probably at least two or three other articles had been created during that same minute. Can we assume that in the past year, there have been 3 million new articles on all Wikipedias?

3,000,000 / 365 days / 24 hours / 60 minutes = 5.7 new articles per minute.

It was impossible for them to accurately identify the exact one, so they HAD to pick one.

And just in case anyone wasn't frisky enough to click through to the Animal In You link to the "weasel" above, I have to copy it here. Tell me, is this Jimbo or what?

QUOTE
Weasel
Genera and species: Mustela nivalis
Collective Term: A sneak of weasels

Description
Weasel personalities are closely related to badgers and skunks, and are suave and disarmingly charming. With their quick minds and lithe physiques, they might appear to be promising companions, but are notorious for the Machiavellian streak that underscores their personalities. Their behavior is motivated by the fact that it is one of the world's smallest carnivores, and while lions and wolves may be able to afford a direct approach in acquiring resources, the smaller personality of the weasel requires more devious tactics. Its survival strategy is based on the manipulation of others and it uses its charm as its chief weapon.

Weasels lack the emotional and spiritual maturity found in the larger carnivores. They are masters of chaos and their above average intelligence allows them to think quite well on their feet. Weasels are attracted to unorthodox environments. Their quick minds are able to take advantage of rapidly changing situations and they'll always emerge with more than their fair share of the booty. They share the same ambitious streak as their cousins the beaver, but their distaste for hard work has them behaving more like their skunk relatives who also resort to chicanery.

They have an uncanny knack of sensing weakness in others and they'll often team up with more successful animal personalities, gaining their trust and then milking them for all they're worth. These relationships are completely one sided. Taking what they need, they soon scuttle off to prey on their next victim. As lawyers, they are the essence of what is wrong with the justice system. Interested only in filling their own pockets, they can be seen on late night TV touting their personal injury services.

Sex is an escape for the weasel that frequently indulges in quick wild fixes, and although it has no shortage of willing partners, it favors connections with its favorite targets: badgers, prairie dogs, and wild cats. The weasel lover is earnest and attentive, with an uncanny ability to make its partner feel as though he or she was the only person in the world. Its appealing shyness and disarming vulnerability heightens the illusion. But, since honesty is an obstacle to its quest for sex, most partners remain unaware of this rascal's true intentions until they've met its wife and kids.

It's impossible to get a straight answer out of a weasel for it simply does not have the inclination to deal with difficult issues, sidestepping them with typical weasel agility. Occasionally though -- in a rush of blood -- it will reveal a fleeting insight into its heart. But out of fear of exposing its true motives, it quickly clams up and regains control.

Careers and Hobbies

Paparazzi
Reporter
Politician
Lawyer
Fine clothes
Music
Adventure films
Photography

Famous Weasels
Mark Fuhrman, Manuel Noriega.




guy
And of course a lot of articles are translated from Wikis in other languages, especially where the languages are so similar that translation is easy. So far as I can judge, there's enormous duplication among the Nordic wikis for example.
Random832
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 18th April 2008, 1:52pm) *

Random, you must have switched to the blue pill this morning!


Um, in The Matrix, if that's what you're referencing the blue one was the one that made you forget everything and go back to being a prisoner in the matrix - a common mistake, though.
Count DeMonet
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 18th April 2008, 4:11pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 18th April 2008, 1:52pm) *

Random, you must have switched to the blue pill this morning!


Um, in The Matrix, if that's what you're referencing the blue one was the one that made you forget everything and go back to being a prisoner in the matrix - a common mistake, though.


unless he meant viagra biggrin.gif
guy
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 18th April 2008, 4:11pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 18th April 2008, 1:52pm) *

Random, you must have switched to the blue pill this morning!

Um, in The Matrix, if that's what you're referencing the blue one was the one that made you forget everything and go back to being a prisoner in the matrix - a common mistake, though.

Viagra pills are, I'm told, blue. tongue.gif
Random832
...anyway...

It hardly takes a genius to see that when finding the 10 millionth article is characterized as a "response" to media coverage, that the purpose of "identifying" it was to distract people.

Though - I'd actually be inclined to doubt that there's just one 10 millionth article. That is, I bet there were at least five articles such that, at the time immediately preceding their creation, there were 9,999,999 articles.
thekohser
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 18th April 2008, 2:37pm) *

...anyway...

It hardly takes a genius to see that when finding the 10 millionth article is characterized as a "response" to media coverage, that the purpose of "identifying" it was to distract people.

Though - I'd actually be inclined to doubt that there's just one 10 millionth article. That is, I bet there were at least five articles such that, at the time immediately preceding their creation, there were 9,999,999 articles.


Word up.

Sorry about the blue/red pill mix-up. I only saw The Matrix once, and I think it was on a free HBO month or something. It's impossible for me to pay strict attention to a movie in my household.

You make an excellent point how Gardner would suggest that "finding the 10 millionth article" is an effective counterpunch to a Chairman Emeritus embarrassing himself and the project in public.

"Uh, Dad, the front right tire just blew out, shouldn't you pull over?"

"Son, we like that tire. That tire has never done anything wrong. It's a really nice tire."

"But, Dad, it's completely busted now, and we're going 25 mph on the freeway. That's dangerous."

"Son, turn up the radio. Listen to how gorgeous it sounds! Louder!"

++++ ==== ++++ ====

P.S. If somebody doesn't make a comment about the Weasel thing, I'm going to crap myself.
Moulton
The page talked about badgers and skunks. But there is no skunk page.

And beside, I'm probably a walrus, anyway.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.