Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-02-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity (5,908 bytes · 💬)

That final step doesnt look very fair, in fact it looks like its predetermined that despite any support for the checkuser they will lose their rights. By first holding the discussion open for more people to agree to remove the tools, and then if that doesnt work well lets vote and go by weight of numbers until we remove the tools. This policy smells much more like an internal self anointed power grab by ARBCOM. Gnan garra 10:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: As far as I am aware, the existing inactivity procedures and standards have been around since 2011. This is simply a codification of how ArbCom may choose to enforce that activity requirement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no, the "five actions in a quarter" was preexisting -- the whole automatic removal unless you can find three arbs to object is entirely new. The old procedure was largely the same, except it required an affirmative vote to remove the permissions (a majority of all active arbitrators explicitly voting to support removal). The new system doesn't require a vote unless three arbs explicitly object. This is now the only process arbcom has where the status quo can be changed by the inaction of a majority. There's a big difference between getting people to explicitly vote for removal versus a pocket veto of silence resulting in a removal. Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What is a "pocket veto of silence"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

Since a motion or proposal required an affirmative vote from a majority of arbs, arbs who oppose a proposal can -- for whatever reason -- can simply ignore the proposal and not vote on it. An arb listed as active who chooses not to vote on a proposal is effectively voting oppose. This turns it around on its head, a failure to vote is now a support. (Not sure how common pocket veto is as a term outside the US, sorry). Courcelles (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk about a counter-intuitive solution to a non-problem. We are already suffering from attrition in the ranks of functionaries at all levels and we are now going to automatically strip users of permissions if life happens, preventing them from being on-project (or they simply are contributing in other ways), meaning that they no longer have tools when they are in a position to be of assistance? How is this beneficial to the project? What's the rationale? I'm sure there must be one, but I'm stretching my mind to imagine one which seems like it would be a net benefit to the project...Snow ^{let's rap} 03:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In a 10-1 vote, I was the 1, so I have to agree with you. This was a bad motion, and the idea of "active as an editor/admin" absolutely should be considered. Courcelles (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Having done one or two checkusers checks in my time, can I say with disappointment that there is a consideration that activity with the tool is the predeterminator for retention of access. We want CU checks run for reasons to maintain access to tools??? I would much prefer to see activity based around active communication, consultation, and managing the requisite queues, answering specific questions relating to CU and the undertaking of audit activity of existing logs. Naturally there is balance, and if someone is not using the tools for extended periods then they do not need access to the tools, it would seem to me that a mature approach is needed, rather than a simple measure of use of tool. :-/ I am a little disappointed that the ArbCom is not seeking community consensus on this matter, and is become an exclusive decision-making body, rather than a committee for arbitration. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This was a bad decision. Watch as functionaries start grasping at situations where they can use their tools. Or worse, checkusers doing baseless checks just to satisfy activity requirements. -- œ^™ 07:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As above, the activity requirements didn't change with this motion, and have been the same since 2011. We are discussing updating them. (See also Callanecc and Kelapstick's posts here.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that there's frequently a back log at SPI, greater checkuser activity would be a good thing. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Blog: Wiki Loves Africa brings the continent’s fashion to the world (1,512 bytes · 💬)

Does anyone know the name of the the type of Jewellery the woman in the Community pick is wearing?©Geni (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A generic term is beadwork, which also covers other styles from around the world. The type of traditional beadwork in the picture is popular among the Maasai and the related Samburu. It is also called beaded jewelry or bead jewelry, as in "Maasai bead jewelry". --Lambiam 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting but I wasn't so much looking for the method of manufacture but the term for a chain hung across the forehead.©Geni (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an English name, the British Museum refers to something in the same class as a "forehead-ornament",[1] and I suppose it is a species of headband. It is very likely there are names in other languages, for example, Greek, as this type of ornament was traditional there.[2] All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

Featured content: This week's featured content (942 bytes · 💬)

Lovely. Tony (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"Eight featured articles were promoted this week." Don't we mean eight articles were promoted to FA? Moriori (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic work on that Earthworm head illustration. Praemonitus (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Abyssal (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Op-ed: Backward the Foundation (15,339 bytes · 💬)

I am guessing that "opsen" is short for "operations engineer"? It took me a few minutes (and failed lookups in Wiktionary and Google) to figure that out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, good catch; I'll tweak it (the inside baseball references made a lot more sense when it just lived on my blog). Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good thing to add to Wikitionary. I can't seem to find any sources for it though. Gamaliel (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I also couldnt quickly find a source for it, but I did see it used as a twitter hash tag with this meaning. I added a redirect & definition on wikitech. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your truthfulness about your personal opinion. I know none of the details of what has been going on behind the scenes, but (I guess like many others) I am alarmed by the shenanigans, and hope for a fresh start with the culture of open collaboration that you describe. I wish you well in your career and hope you will always strive to create openness and transparency wherever you are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope so too! And in the meantime I have to rewrite the article on Aaron Burr. Thank you for your mind words! Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
We hired for none of these values. We tasked for none of these values. And so we have, organisationally, none of these values.. That is very well put. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and your hard work at the WMF. Husky ^{(talk page)} 09:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. It was...I'm not going to say "fun", obviously, but it was good to be able to so easily translate rather inchoate and nuanced thoughts into words. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree that culture is fragile. I coded in a different era when it was OK if we had alcohol while out at lunch with our department, as long as we promised not to touch the code for the rest of the day. That was generally at goodbye lunches where the person had been bought by one of our competitors in Massachusetts (all of them defunct by now). I am pretty sure what we did back then would be considered illegal today. So are you headed to Massachusetts? Maybe you can help them fix what they have started 3x and been reverted. Good Luck, Jane (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Already in Mass! I'll try not to edit work-related stuff :D. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"The things that always distinguished the Wikimedia Foundation as a workplace are gone, and replaced with an environment that prizes unanimity above confidence and lacks accountability for organisational failures." Strange, the impression I have from here (enwiki) is that the WMF for years and years completely lacked "accountability for organisational failures", of which there were many (as you should be well aware), and that only during the last years or so has there been any improvement in this. I don't know about unanimity, but one of the reasons for the many failures was overconfidence (why should we test or have a fallback scenario, this thing can't go wrong!) and arrogance from too many people at the WMF. Fram (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim it was all roses, but I'd argue there is a big difference in accountability and transparency between say, the last year or so pre-transition (where, sure, things were not perfect, but absolutely getting better) and the current situation. Ironholds (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"the last year or so pre-transition" would be 2013-2014? The period that saw the introduction of VE and Flow, to name just these two? In what way was the accountability any better at that time? What, if anything, was actually "absolutely getting better" in that period? I seem to recall it as one long downhill course, ending one year later with the Superprotect fiasco, and only since then has there been some improvements (coupled with many same old same old problems, ranging from Gather to the WMF Board problems). Fram (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

2014-15, I was thinking of. Again, I'm not saying it was perfect, but I think that a lot of the feedback processes were improving - the proper resourcing of community liaison tasks helped a lot. I'm not expecting us to agree here, mind ;p. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Community liaison? You mean the PR people/ablative meat-shields you have to get through before dealing with someone who might actually know what is going on?

From the outside in "the last year or so pre-transition" the WMF appeared to be a large part to be drifting while waiting for the new ED. Sure the management may have been better (at least reports suggest it was) but the lack of overall direction combined with the ongoing need to have software "successes" no matter what the cost was a problem. Still thats pretty much what you would expect given how much the ED hunt overan.©Geni (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a former liaison I don't know what productive conversation you expect to have when you open by referring to the other participants as "ablative meat-shields". Again: not saying it was perfect. Not saying it was good. Just saying it was getting better, and has recently got a lot worse. Ironholds (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What Geni is saying is that the liaison absorbs the flak form the community - until they are worn away or ground down by it.

Now if the culture is such that the liaison is able to be a community champion inside the organisation, then the flak will, probably, abate - and good things will happen. However if the liaison is required to push the organisation's views on the community, and dis-empowered from achieving change on behalf of the community, then the job of liaison is neither pleasant nor useful.

I think consensus is probably that the latter has been more the case recently than the former.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

Some give the impression of not only being required to do so, but to be happy to do so, either because they share the same views or because it is more interesting to please the one that pays you. Some of the people I most respect at the WMF are two community liaisons, but some of the worst (remaining) people at the WMF I have had contact with are two other community liaisons. Good community liaisons trying to ease the tensions when some of the technical people (or usually their bosses) at the WMF have screwed up again are a very good thing; poor community liaisons only increase the distrust and problems between enwiki (or dewiki presumably) and the WMF, as happened recently with the Gather discussion. With VE and Flow, the good and the bad community liaisons provided an uneasy balance there, but it was often amazing to see how people with the same job description in the same (difficult) situation dealt with things in completely opposite ways. Fram (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

2014-2015 was the first year Tretikov "ruled", so to speak, and the year e.g. Erik Moeller left. How was this a "pre-transition" year? Perhaps you should better explain what "transition" you are talking about, and when it happened, as I don't seem to be on the same page. In any case, I have no idea how it was to work at the WMF before Tretikov and how it is now, but I can see that some of the most toxic elements (wrt relations with the communities) have left, that some very poorly thought out and implemented projects have been suspended or completely redirected (Flow and Gather), and that many of the problems we recently had are not directly caused by Tretikov (who is not on the WMF Board, unlike people like Jimbo Wales), apart from probably the Knowledge Engine communication disaster. From my position, many of the grumblings of the older WMF ranks come across as "damn, we no longer have the happy careless job where we could pursue pet projects without any accountability" and not the exact opposite, which you claim to be what's happening. It's very hard to reconcile these two views, and so far you have done little to enlighten us on what really is the problem now. Claiming that before Tretikov, there was more accountability and better community liaisons seems hardly realistic. Fram (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate there's an information disparity here, and I'm not able to do much to solve it; I'm bound by an NDA and so can't give my perspectively entirely or hypothesise too wildly.

You may have misunderstood my point; I didn't say that there were better liaisons, I said the liaisons were one of the things improving, and I've felt over the last couple of years that things have remained pretty static on that sort of front (IOW, they are not worse, or better, more..stable).

I agree there have been fewer massive, public communications problems in the last couple of years, mind; I don't think that's because we've stopped making mistakes, I think it's because we've stopped communicating what we're doing. Even inside the organisation, a lot of people don't know what other teams are doing, or find out in the last minute, and a lot of the current projects are not necessarily editor-centric things (an example is the www.wikipedia.org redesigns, which have been tested and played with for a couple of months now but don't exactly have village pump messages plonked down about them). So: don't confuse a lack of public pratfalls for a lack of pratfalls. It could just as easily be a lack of projects, or a lack of transparency about those projects.

The "old guard" argument - well, frankly, most people in the organisation don't get to choose what projects get worked on, and never have. Unless you're a Product Manager or above or a particularly forward designer who can wow people with cool mockups, your ideas tend not to go anywhere. So the idea that people are grumbling because they no longer get to work on whatever they want: well, most of them never have. And if you look at the people who have been publicly expressing issues with the organisation's direction, you'll not find product managers: you'll mostly find people outside of engineering entirely, responsible for things like the Teahouse, and engineers or researchers, some of whom joined after, not before, Lila did.

So I think the idea of a marginalised old guard is a pretty inaccurate one, but also (more importantly) one that's disprovable with public information. Anna Koval had nothing to do with Flow; Siko had nothing to do with Flow; I did in the initial days but sure as hell didn't propose the thing. Neither did Anasuya or Frances. There's clearly something beyond a change in projects to explain the departures. Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disprovable? People like Moeller and Jorm (and you) are old guard compared to Tretikov, and Moeller and Jorm were some of the people most involved with those failed projects (it isn't really clear what you have done after you have been taken of the Flow project). And you focus quite strongly on "they weren't our projects", but the more important thing in my post was the lack of accountability, which is just what you claim is happening now but from a wikipedia point of view was what happened before. I guess that there were problems at the WMF which didn't really directly affect wikipedia but which were seriously problematic for people like Siko, so I'm not saying that Tretikov was a faultless saint; I lack the information to accurately judge her work in toto. But I note that there were problems at WMF which have seriously been reduced since she was there, and which were at least in part solved by her reshuffling of some departments and getting rid of some people. And one of the things behind these earlier problems was clearly a lack of accountability, which is what you claim was better in the old days. And when I notice some of the people who were part of the problem then now posting about the problems now (not just you, but also and more ironically someone like Moeller), then I can't help but notice that lack of self-awareness and acknowledgement of their role in earlier, bigger failures is still rampant and that little if anything has been learned by some from the Flow, VE, ... disasters. Fram (talk) 07:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

While I can't speak for Siko the reason I'm leaving is that being in the organisation under Lila's leadership was so deeply unpleasant on a personal level that I've advocated HR educate people about common responses to psychological traumas for myself and my coworkers. I work on the Discovery team and I didn't know half the stuff posted about the Knowledge Engine until it was posted, so an argument that transparency is improving holds little water. Absolutely, she did a lot of things well (absent some resourcing problems I really like the internal re-org, for example). And absolutely, Flow and the VE were seriously problematic. But they're totally unrelated to my reason for leaving, and neither excuses nor justifies the chilling absence of discussion and toxic internal culture that marked her tenure. Ironholds (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just in case anyone missed it, the title is a reference to Forward the Foundation. --Izno (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well said, Oliver. Best of luck to you. -Philippe (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Special report: [UPDATED] WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears (28,538 bytes · 💬)

Comment

WMF staffers are convinced that Tretikov's departure is imminent Other things that WMF staffers have been convinced of have included that VisualEditor would reinvigorate editing, that Flow was the future of discussion on the wikis, and that it was of paramount importance to force MediaViewer onto the projects in an unfinished state. — Scott • talk 12:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, looks like I was wrong. I'm sorry to learn of Lila's departure. — Scott • talk 23:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost is campaigning against Lila Tretikov. Indeed, letting go the wonderful people who wrote VisualEditor, MediaViewer, SuperProtect, Flow, and Gather... What a shame ! Maybe the Signpost has someone to put in orbit, in order to launch some EditorProtect, F-Viewer or SuperMedia. Pldx1 (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to where Siko or Luis were involved in any of those projects, please? Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Okeyes (WMF). Can you point to where you were not involved ? But, anyway, good luck for your new job. Pldx1 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I was certainly involved in the very early stages of Flow and VisualEditor, yes - three years ago. I've never worked on any of the others, and my departure is unrelated to the projects we choose to work on. Thank you for your best wishes. Ironholds (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You were still involved with Flow after it had been released and at least until February 2014, two years ago, not three. Please don't be too modest about your role in these failed implementations and the steep drop in enwiki-WMF relations. Better luck in your next job. Fram (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, then; I have not been involved in some of the work that people are laying at my feet for two years, and have never been at all involved in the rest. For reference, if we're taking responsibility for our role in enwiki-WMF relations I have always found your aggressive and sarcastic communications style to staffers to be deeply chilling. People tend to not go out of their way to help people out when those people are snarling at them. You might want to factor this into how you talk to staff who are, ultimately, mostly just trying to help (even if you might dispute the quality of the actions). Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps check which staffers have been treated sarcastically and which ones haven't, and from what point on I started treating someone thus. When it is obvious that some people are not interested at all in "helping people out" (not "go out of their way to help people out", but simply help out with things that are the core of their function at the WMF), or at least not the people thay are talking to (but are more than happy to go out of their way to help the people that are paying them), then I may become sarcastic, yes. When someone truly wants to help, or honestly indicates that they can't help (not "don't want to help" as was often the case), then I have no problem with them and treat them correctly. When someone talks bullshit and hopes to get away with it (like making empty promise after empty promise, or fabricating numbers out of thin air, or claiming that things work and have done extensive testing when a simple test indicates that it doesn't work at all, or ...), then eventually they lose my respect and I treat them with the contempt they clearly have for us, but I do it openly instead of covered in a civil coating. Finally, for someone who has been admonished by ArbCom "For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects"[3] and desysopped at the same time, you are perhaps not the best person to comment on someone's communication style. Fram (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Or, alternately, as someone who has been on the other side of the aisle, so to speak, I am perfectly qualified. I'm not saying that mistakes aren't made: I'm saying that all too often the people you're "treating with the contempt they clearly have for us" are the messengers, not the author. Liaisons make promises, but they don't set priorities. Liaisons provide reports, but don't necessarily author them. Everyone has one small piece of the puzzle, and the person tasked with communicating something is not that commonly the person responsible for making it, be that promises, numbers or code. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to be totally clear; I don't think your frustration with people providing inaccurate or false reports is not valid. It's entirely valid and entirely understandable, in the same way that (from the inside) employee dislike towards, say, our senior management structures, is totally understandable. But the vast majority of the frustration I've seen expressed around the current crisis has been very deliberately expressed in closed venues, confidentially, or privately, for the simple reason that airing all the dirty laundry with all of our frustrations about it makes it unlikely people would listen to us: with how angry I've seen some people they'd probably just hide under their desks. So, your frustration here is valid, and I'm not denying that. But airing or not airing those understandable frustrations, and how you do it, has implications for whether situations get resolved or not. Learning or directing through fear is not the Wikipedia way. Ironholds (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see the tabloidification of this weekly newsletter for Wikipedia. Might we keep all this stuff on Jimbo's talk page where we are quite used to it? :) Collect (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, Collect, this seems like news that could be consequential. I'm not clued in, I'll just have to wait on developments like everyone else who isn't directly involved. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is quite professional, and appears to be needed to inform the community. I do agree with Collect about "tabloidification" however, and think that anybody who read the last 2 editions would know what he is talking about. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I was jonesing yesterday for the latest info on this trainwreck, & found myself reduced to reading the discussion pages of Wikipediocracy in hope of learning something new. So I appreciate the updates here. (And FWIW, they didn't have any new information either. All I learned from reading the threads there was many posters there hate Wikipedia & the employees of the Foundation -- which I already knew.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're complaining about, Collect. I didn't put any swear words in the title this time. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well written and well-edited summary of the current state of affairs. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. - kosboot (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

+1. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me add a positive outlook at all these scandals: in terms of Wikipedia, WMF is "mostly harmless". During my nearly 5 years of wikipedianship, I didn't feel any disruption of my work as a wikipedian by WMF. For Wikipedia, what matters is technical support. The rest is political games. Wikipedians themselves are capable of organizing edit-a-thons, "countering systemic bias", etc. From what I see, I have an impression that WMF is less concerned with using money to improve Wikipedia, the flagship project, but with looking for ways to burn more money. Fortunately, I believe, Wikipedia reached the stage that it will not collapse as long as servers are running. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And one can accept that things need to be tried, and they cost money, and that is not necessarily a waste, even if they fail. However it has to be galling when such large sums are donated to the WMF and no progress is made on years old bugs. For example T14974 has been sitting gathering dust for 6 years, but the bug bit me a few days ago, wasting a significant amount of my time, as I am sure it has wasted the time of many others.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

" {Phab|T14974}} has been sitting gathering dust" -- not exactly so. In fact 's been sitting gathering numerous notices of kind "Bug 11262 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug". Staszek Lem (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. So long as the servers are running and the community remains independent then things tend to tick over well enough. Spending money just because you (WMF) have it has never sat well with me.--Discott (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Scott: : FWIW, I can assure you that various people inside the WMF have disagreed on all those points. However, it seems that WMF staff like to usually keep their disagreements internal (Which quite frankly, I've always thought was a mistake - I've often felt that the appearance of WMF being all one person with no dissenting views, gives rise to much of the strained relations with the projects, because its often non-obvious that WMF'ers are discussing and considering concerns that get raised internally. Obviously, there's a lot more than that to strained relations than that, but I feel like its a big part). Bawolff (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That is important. Wikimedians are used to understanding consensus, and reading (or not reading and accepting) the discussions that lead to them, without taking decisions personally. What we really don't like (I think) is "We are doing this because we know better" or "we are not working on this bug because we know better." The "we" that knows better can be the speaker, or some vague reference to "authority".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

Re: Many staffers had little information about the project

Why would staffers ever need to know more than others? If something can be said to hundreds of persons on WMF's payroll, it can as well be said on Meta-Wiki. Nemo 19:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the examples the article uses are the board (which has, what, 9 people?) and the Discovery team (which has ~12, 13). Not exactly hundreds. And even if it were hundreds, there is a very big difference between "a pool of NDAd people" and "the entire internet-connected population of earth". Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question Nemo, they apparently did not need to know at all - no one was was expecting them to work on a project they say they did not know about - a project that did not exist anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nemo_bis, the few staff who did know had very little understanding of Wikimedia values and dynamics. But many staff do have a good understanding. So from a pragmatic standpoint, being more open with staff would have helped expose decision-makers to considerations that could have potentially avoided all this chaos and disruption. -Pete (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Might be, but I see no proof that this system ever worked. If someone could write a history of mail:wmfall and exhibit a couple examples of productive discussions that could not have happened elsewhere, I'd be very grateful. Nemo 08:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that the story's over

Would anyone care to share their thoughts about what qualities the next ED should have? One quality that I see mentioned time & again would be an ability to reach out & communicate with the communities of volunteers. An important sign a candidate might not have this ability would be if she/he spoke repeatedly about "crowdsourcing" & not about "online community". I believe not knowing why these two terms are not synonymous is why there was friction between the volunteers & the Foundation during the tenure of the last two EDs. -- llywrch (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The task of any Executive Director is to act in accordance with the specific instructions of the Board of Directors in operations of the entity for which he or she is the Executive Director in order to handle day-to-day decisions and staff management. Can a board instruct an ED to specific obey the instructions of a community of some sort? Maybe - but any acts done in that manner which are to the detriment of the foundation might be found to be a dereliction on the part of the board, which has a primary statutory responsibility to the organization itself. Therefore, it is outré to suggest that any "community" control an Executive Director.

What the community can do is establish a liaison beholden only to the community and not selected by the Board of Directors to communicate the community concerns. I think what you are seeking instead of an "Executive Director" is an "Executive Interlocutor" which is rather a different animal.

I, in fact, think it would be a good idea for the WMF to establish such a position. But the title can not be "Executive Director" with any straight face. Collect (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is in charge now?

Since this departure sounds like it is happening right away and a typical search for a capable executive director can take 6-12 months, who is left running the organization in the interim? I guess there will be some announcement about this by tomorrow (I hope). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the expert view of User:Liz, it takes 6-12 months to select a capable Executive Director. Thus the aim of the actual campaign is to put in charge an incapable/not Executive for 6-12 months. Cui bono ? Pldx1 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: As the story notes, the resignation is effective on March 31, 2016. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed17, I did see that notice after I posted my question. As for Pldx1, I don't see your point except to mock me. I never said I was an expert. I was asking a question in a comments section...which is one of the purposes of a comments section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Dariusz Jemielniak, writing on the Facebook group, Lila "will be available to support the transition work for that period, which is definitely useful for many practical reasons", but he implies she won't be doing any more day-to-day management.

There will be an interim ED, but that is something that the Board need to work on. Jimmy's just announced he's flying to San Fransisco to be on the spot to hear what people are saying, and will be there from Saturday to Wednesday.

More may be clearer tomorrow, when I think they're having a big staff meeting.

The recruitment process for a permanent replacement may take at least a year. Jheald (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Image

Can we get rid of the huge image at the top please? (I tried but was reverted) It adds nothing, is redundant since the decision is now taken, and sucks up everyone's bandwidth. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The image is of the situation when the story was posted. I have added a white smoke image here to bring the semiotics up to date. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

Thanks whoever changed it. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Lies

"The focus of the Wikimedia Foundation has always been to support that community." Lies. I sincerely doubt the WMF has given a damn about helping actual editors since before I got here. For those asking what Tretikov's replacement should be like, I'd respond that the ED's job is to execute the Board's directions which doesn't help us because the board sucks. If the "focus of the Wikimedia Foundation" was actually taking care of the tasks we the users indicated we wanted done this problem would sort itself out. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not lies. It just so happens that WMF knows better what "that community" needs than "that community" themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I'll be the last to say that the WMF has done a perfect job of supporting the community, but did you notice the new Community Tech team and its community wishlist? Or perhaps the Wikipedia Library? (Note: I work for the WMF but this comment is made in my volunteer capacity only—imho there are areas that you can fault the WMF on, but .... 'everything' is a bit much.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@The ed17: Indeed I am. I have served both as a coordinator for TWL and a visiting scholar. Although I haven't been a witness to the work accomplished by the folks in San Francisco, it appears to me these efforts at TWL run on the contributions of our many volunteers, not the salaried board members whom I accuse of apathy. This Signpost article and the other related articles illustrate well that the WMF board has been putting their effort and money into other pet projects while giving lip-service to what the community asked for last year. You yourself (and the other Signpost contributors) have made great benefaction to the community by running this newspaper and you've done so as a volunteer. If the WMF valued you they'd be paying you for your hard work or at least publicly expressing thanks. I judge the WMF by its revealed preference. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Ah okay, I see your point of view better now and it makes much more sense—thank you. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@The ed17: The WMF should apologize to the community for the way they handled that Community Wishlist Survey. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What? Legoktm (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Which "salaried board members" are you referring to? Legoktm (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Legoktm: All of them: Kelly Battles, Frieda Brioschi, Dariusz Jemielniak, Guy Kawasaki, Patricio Lorente, María Sefidari, Denny Vrandečić, and Alice Wiegand. I don't know to what degree Jimbo is anything more than a talking head but he's responsible for this mess, too. Don't tell me they're all working on a volunteer basis. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

...they're all working on a volunteer basis. The bylaws explicitly prohibit them from holding a paid office with the Foundation, or any chapter or thematic body. Ironholds (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They don't get a salary, they're volunteers. Legoktm (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well. I guess we, the community, got what we paid for. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if you want. We're not trustees so insulting them doesn't exactly do damage. Ironholds (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Extremely unhelpful comment by Chris Troutman. Tony (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Put the arbitrators in charge

The only people I have faith in are the arbitrators as a whole. Their collective decisions. I may disagree with individual votes at times, but their collective decisions are usually pretty good. And they self-correct later on at times.

I have rarely trusted the board as a whole because they are outsiders for the most part. The board should be strictly honorary. They are important, and their opinions should be sought. But they should not be in charge.

All the paid staff (including the executive director) should be under the control of the arbitrators as a whole.

And why did it take so many years to get a wishlist based on a survey?: meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results. I am one of the top 2500 contributors (in number of edits) to Wikipedia. These things have been desired for years. Please implement them. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a former arbitrator: no, just no. Those "outsiders" include Wikimedians from projects other than English Wikipedia. Are you including the arbitration committees from those projects as well? By law, Board of Trustees members must publicly identify, and by bylaws they receive no money for what they do: what about if those arbitrators from various projects don't want to do that? Nobody elected arbitrators to oversee budgets or select executive directors or review contracts, and on every project arbitrators are specifically *not* responsible for strategy or policy decisions. I will say, though, that it is great that you have found the Arbitration Committee to be impressive enough to suggest they would be a suitable replacement. Risker (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrators are deeply involved in what makes Wikipedia the trusted neutral source of info that it is. Almost no one else is so deeply and continuously involved in the balance of power, rules, and guidelines. And they are elected. I don't think anyone should be on the board of trustees who has not been an arbitrator. I do not like many of the tangents that the Board has taken us on. The arbitrators make decisions that are much more transparent. Detailed positions on an issue are taken from most anybody that wants to write up their point of view on an issue that the arbitrators are deciding on. I want that openness on the Board. Experience is the best teacher. So only ex-arbitrators should be on the board. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lila's statement

"I am both inspired by, and proud of, the many great things we have all accomplished at the Foundation over the last two years, most significantly reversing the loss of our editorial community"

That's quite a bold statement. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And it is not borne by the statistics we have. It is a pity she chose to assert this. Ijon (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Over the last 2 year period it looks like it may be true. But not over the last year according to the yearly change for active editors over the last year:

See: Wikimedia project at a glance. See the top table, and the first chart. It is also linked below:

File:Active editors on English Wikipedia over time.png --Timeshifter (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but is the foundation responsible for that? I'm pretty certain thay are not. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(volunteer edit) It's the very actives that have stabilized, and active editors are flat. Not increasing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate venue for discussion of this topic, but I feel the "decline in editors" is probably attributable to a number of factors (almost no one has noticed that it coincided with the Financial crisis of 2007–08). Similarly the current leveling-out of declining editors is probably due to a number of factors, and I suspect none of them have much to do with actions of the WMF. Calling Wikimedia Research. - kosboot (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Technology report: Tech news in brief (927 bytes · 💬)

What is an "ArchCom" and what is a shepherd? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: The ArchCom is the Wikimedia Architecture Committee which takes care of the software architecture behind MediaWiki. A shepherd is a role for RFC handling adopted from another project (Rust (programming language)), basically the assigned person "is responsible for keeping the discussion moving and ensuring all concerns are responded to." [4] --Micru (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Traffic report: Of dead pools and dead judges (353 bytes · 💬)

loser.com is just too funny. Not that funny is all the attention he gets and the votes it brings him. Kripmo (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)