2181:. . .to explore ways to make the search and discovery of high-quality, trustworthy information on Knowledge (XXG) more accessible and open with $ 250,000 from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Funding will support an investigation of search and browsing on Knowledge (XXG) and other Wikimedia projects, with the goal of improving how people explore and acquire information Knowledge (XXG) includes more than 35 million articles in hundreds of languages. Its standards for neutral, fact-based and relevant information have made it a reliable resource for nearly half a billion people every month. With more than 7,000 articles created every day and 250 edits made per minute, Knowledge (XXG) is constantly growing and improving. Its open, nonprofit model, allows anyone to participate and contribute. The new Knight-funded project will help make it easier to discover information on this vast resource of community-created content.
1497:: you want to cut all the experianced people, give their jobs to interns - and somehow this will result in having 100's of people who can code better mediawiki? Who will teach these interns how to do stuff? If gsoc/opw is any indication, most interns (not all) need significant hand holding, especially at the beginning. Replacing all experianced people with unsupervised interns would probably just result in a bunch of interns making unusable software. More generally I think you are assuming that everyone is a developer at wikimedia, and some developers eventually get promoted into decesion makers and that it would be possible for everyone to revert back to fixing bugs if needed. Where really there is a much more of a separation between managers (particularly at the upper level) and developers and they dont have the same skill set. Managers may or may not have the technical skills to close out technical phabricator tickets.
2257:
grandiose proposal and initially asking the Knight
Foundation for many millions of USD. As Beutler states in this article, Knight appears to have "let them down easy" by talking the WMF down to a small exploratory grant, which likely indicates the Knight Foundation shared some of the concerns raised by others about a lack of a detailed plan and the WMF's ability to follow through on such a proposal. And let's not overlook the broader context, with many community members having felt for years that the WMF is unresponsive to them, and WMF employees openly discussing their concerns about a lack of communication and leadership. The way this whole affair was handled appears to reinforce those views. --
2004:. Are you suggesting that someone reporting to the ED was able to apply for a multi-million dollar grant without the direct authorization of the ED? That the plan put forward in the grant application was not approved by the ED in advance of its submission? That a grant agreement that included clear language indicating that a broad search engine was to be developed, which was not completed until months after Sicore left the Wikimedia Foundation, was not negotiated under the purview of the ED? The ED is still an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, unless something's happened that I missed entirely. I get that the plan changed, but the application for the grant didn't.
2021:, this is surely complicated. From what I've gleaned (I have no first-hand knowledge): Sicore didn't apply for the grant, b/c he was gone before the application was submitted. No, surely the ED negotiated and approved the plan, and is still an employee. It was alleged that only Sicore proposed that WMF should get into general 'searching' or to try to 'be google'. Language in the grant application that mislead in this direction may have not been intended to mislead quite that way. Clearly, with her talk of "TARDIS" the ED viewed this as a "really big thing", but not so clear that her vision was the same as Sicore's. Another vision might be something like
862:âOur aim was to begin exploring new initiatives that could help address the challenges that Knowledge (XXG) is facing, especially as other sources and methods arise for people to acquire knowledge. If you havenât yet, please have a look at the recent data and metrics which illustrate the downward trajectory our movement faces with readership decline (since 2013), editor decline (since 2007, which we stabilized for English Knowledge (XXG) in 2015), and our long standing struggle with conversion from reading to editing. These risks rank very high on my list of priorities, because they threaten the very core of our mission.â
1135:
the making for a long time. And I do indeed even agree with the part of your narrative that states that Lila has generally herself made community relations more of an ED level issue than it was before, which is doubtlessly a good thing. The issues here, however, go deeper than that, and they reflect primarily the churn, communications issues and erratic decision-making of the last year, of which KE is only a symptom. That is the issue many people are raising, one which you are unfairly and unempathetically dismissing with a heroes/villains storyline. There will be no triumphant return of
2113:
her, and many other WMF employees have cited her incompetence as a factor that is damaging staff morale? What are your feelings on the large number of WMF employees leaving the organization, with many citing as reasons for their departure organizational dysfunction and a feeling that they will be retaliated against for speaking out? Does the Board have any plans to address these issues? Could you tell us who recommended
Geshuri to the Board? For that matter, could you do the same for the other appointed Trustees? Why do Board members, including you, apparently not read the
1917:
Given the secrecy at that stage, I assumed Damon was just a bit ... 'colorfully' paranoid about things like Google hiring people away or organizing their offerings to more thoroughly hide us... obviously if we'd gone through with a giant search engine it would have been public knowledge before we *did* it, so it never made much sense to me to hide it other than in coordinating an initial organizational/PR 'blitz'. It kind of feels like Lila stayed in 'KE is secret project' mode while everyone else moved away from it, but again I've not been in the loop for this stuff... --
344:
1097:, I had flow in mind in particular. But I recall some other thing (an automatic home page or something for mobile, that Jorm initiated) that was canned. Your surfacing here and on the Knowledge (XXG) Weekly Facebook page is creepy and unbecoming. You are largely responsible for the shambles Lila inherited. We haven't forgotten the contempt with which you treated us when you were in control at WMF. What are you trying to achieve here? Have you been stirring the shit in the background, drumming up this coup? --
2033:. I can't say one is better; they're just different. At this point I think, the party line is that they just don't know what their vision of improved search or "discovery" is, as they are just researching several avenues to look for promising roads to travel down. I'm mystified as to why apparently 90% of the staff, most of whom don't work in the Discovery department, are so stressed out about this. Seems there must be more rationale for their dissatisfaction than just this "Discovery" thing.
1679:. It was written by junior staff members at the Knight Foundation. Hereâs how it works: you have a conversation with staff at the Knight Foundation about ideas you have for program areas youâd like to fund, throw these ideas back and forth through a phone call or two, and then send the Knight Foundation a 1 page summary of what youâre looking to do. Knight junior staff then turns this into a document that they send to their VP, and then once the VP signs it, itâs done.
730:
280:
929:
322:
has an educational mission whose impact cannot be measured solely in terms of traffic. That Google borrows information from
Knowledge (XXG)âthough they are not alone in thisâin such a way that it answers peopleâs questions before they have to actually click through to en.wikipedia.org is still a win for Knowledge (XXG), even if it reduces the (already low) probability that a reader will become a Knowledge (XXG) contributor.
121:
111:
1821:
meeting and the institution of a performance improvement plan. The KE 'scandal' was an opportunity for Lila to take charge, communicate clearly, and articulate how she and WMF are taking concerns about openness and planning seriously; instead at every step she, and you, have denied there was ever a problem. Staff have been watching and listening to upper management and the board, and people are voting with their feet. --
1551:. Tretikov may be a part of the problem, and staff disagreements etc are not uncommon anywhere, especially when a new broom appears, but Wales is the real public face, ie: mainstream media etc. He needs to back off because he is only making matters worse with his wayward announcements and opinions, often supposedly in a personal capacity but inevitably read by those with news-power as being in some way official. -
1416:, and we don't really want people making decisions, we just want them closing out tasks in Phabricator that have been sitting around unanswered for years on end. The problem with laying out big bucks for career software designers is they want to make careers, have some big piece of software with a fancy name they can say they built for a top website, not say they closed out a bunch of miscellaneous user requests.
1123:, the situation is very much out of control, and very respected and trusted individuals who are absolutely beyond your vitriol have made this abundantly clear. My former colleagues are distressed, taking medical leave, can't sleep, and are openly revolting. Perhaps you allow me the amount of humanity to believe that my reaction to this is shock and pain more than anything else.
36:
131:
1935:"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general 'searching' or to try to 'be google'. Itâs an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. Itâs a total lie."
1844:"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general 'searching' or to try to 'be google'. Itâs an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. Itâs a total lie."
373:. It certainly would include a full accounting of the many high-profile WMF staffers to leave since late 2014, and the role Tretikov played in each. It would include a careful examination of what the WMF can and should do in Knowledge (XXG)âs name, and an evaluation of how the evolving app-focused Internet raises questions about Knowledge (XXG)âs own future.
91:
141:
2309:
up for discussion to thousands of people, who may not know what they are talking about legally or technically, who have multiple diverse agendas (including, job security, or making money off of
Knowledge (XXG), or seeing Knowledge (XXG) fail), and maybe entirely adverse to every idea (which anyone who has seen Knowledge (XXG) discussions knows is
2052:, you seem to be suggesting that we have to parse every statement made by Jimmy Wales to check whether it could potentially mean the precise opposite of what it appears to say. You may be happy to do that, but do you think that a communication style which requires such parsing is open, clear and transparent, and conducive to building trust?
101:
898:âIt seems to me extremely damaging that Lila has approached an external organisation for funding a new search engine (however you want to define it), without first having a strategic plan in place. Either the Board knew about this and didnât see a problem, or they were incorrectly informed about the grantâs purpose. Either is very bad.â
2308:
Well, if you are Knight investing 250,000, you don't want to crush thought by being overly restrictive in a research grant, and if you're the WMF, you want a restricted grant to be as unrestricted as possible. As for engagement, there has got to be a balance, because you just cannot put every thought
2256:
here. No one, as far as I can tell, wants disclosure of every single thing anyone at the WMF has ever mentioned or thought of, down to the level of one-off water cooler talk. It seems clear that this
Knowledge Engine idea went far beyond that stage, with the WMF devoting time to putting together this
2151:
Quite the opposite, Watson. Deduction. At last, it all comes together. Knowledge Engine was/is a secret and badly conceived program, James wanted to discuss it, meanwhile ED did not function (staff discontent) and when James interfered too much with that topic, he was kicked out. Left to explain: the
2091:
No, I'm not happy about the need to parse Jimmy's comments in search of increasingly convoluted ways to find that they are consistent with what others are saying. I too find his communication style lacking, and am not pleased with some things he has said about
Heilman. On the other hand, we should be
2055:
And are you happy for Wales to tell you it's a "total lie" to suggest that anyone "in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general 'searching' or to try to 'be google'", or that it is "a part of any grant", when we now have WMF staff and the ED confirming that Damon
1459:
I haven't seen convincing evidence there's anything "the matter" with Lila
Tretikov. I'm thinking what's "the matter" is that we keep hearing about an Executive Director at all, rather than an RFC or a volunteer starting a coding project. There has to be a way to downgrade the role of the people at
1081:
attests) while a user talk opt-in beta on a few wikis is ongoing; it might indeed be best to ultimately shut it down if there's a better, less contentious way to address user experience issues with talk pages. I personally think that's hard to do without painting yourself into a corner long term, but
1040:
Sadly, it did not help. Apparently, the board is still under the delusion that it is possible to salvage the situation whilst maintaining the status-quo, and even a consensus of nearly all the old hands on staff were unable to make them budge beyond assigning a "coach" that the ED feels is optional.
842:
And thatâs why there is really just no way Lila
Tretikov can continue to lead the WMF. A week ago, the thinking was: the Board of Trustees chose her over James Heilman, so theyâre really sticking with her. At the time it also seemed like the Knowledge Engine was a going concern, and their support for
716:
An argument I have heard in recent days is that itâs common in grant-making to try for everything you can and see what actually sticks. This may be true, but if so, it doesnât seem to have been worth it. That WMF leadership felt they had to hide the fact later on also underlines the mistake they knew
677:
and tried to offer a plausible explanation for how the grant request did not necessarily imply a Google-competitive search engine projectâdamage control, essentiallyâbut still had to concede the wording of the grant did not make
Tretikov or WMF look good: âIt is ambiguous. I canât speak to the intent
330:
These are much harder questions for WMF to answerâin part because the answers are ânoâ, ânoâ, and ânoââand would absolutely have to be shared with the
Wikimedia Board of Trustees ahead of time and, for political reasons, socialized within the Knowledge (XXG) community itself. The incident surrounding
2112:
Jimmy, could you discuss the reasons why the Board feels Lila continues to be a good choice for the ED position (I assume this continues to be the case, as the Board has made no statements to the contrary), when every single other "C-level" employee stated to the Board that they had no confidence in
1134:
This is not a criticism of her. It's a criticism of your narrative. We largely agreed on these priorities, and on many other things, including the need to focus more attention on community needs. She, Toby, Damon and I worked closely together on the engineering reorg, as well, which also had been in
794:
Thank you, Ori. +1 to everything you said. We have been laboring under significant dysfunction for more than a year now, and are now in crisis. We are losing precious colleagues, time, money, *even more* community trust than we had previously squandered, and health (literally; the board HR committee
770:
My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results to show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently
700:
Now that sounds like a real answer! Whatâs more, it also provides the outlines of a believable story as to why the Knight Foundation grant included language about the search engine, even if it wasnât then the plan. This is transparency of a sort! But itâs transparency of the last-ditch kind. That it
321:
Itâs an understandable position: if you are the leader of an organization whose success has been largely described in terms of its overall traffic, any decline in traffic may be equated with a decline in Wikimediaâs ability to fulfill its mission. I submit this is short-sighted: that Knowledge (XXG)
261:
After several months of not knowing anything was amiss, followed by weeks of painful acrimony, we think we have the answer: as of February 2016, the mysterious project is in fact a WMF staff-run project to improve Knowledge (XXG)âs on-site search with some modest outside funding, which sounds like a
2228:
It's the opacity claim that is rather opaque - if you accept a grant for study and open a Wiki page on the project - it's hardly opaque. I guess, some people want to know the date someone was not thinking about building a Google (if anyone can even remember when that was) but that seems untenable,
1916:
editor' pipeline. More ambitiously there was some talk about trying to capture more total web search mindshare/user-share... obviously since Google/etc have butt-tons of money they can much more effectively grab the user share, making our potential project unpopular until it gets canned... I guess?
1419:
What to do with the leftover elite decision maker money? Pay it to senior undergrads and selected volunteer editors. Give them each an internship, a simple project, a job reference. I'm thinking victory for Wikimedia isn't really coding a better MediaWiki - victory is teaching hundreds of people
888:
Full quote: âTo make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general âsearchingâ or to try to âbe googleâ. Itâs an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
712:
in another comment on this public thread (!) from yet another WMF team member (!) pointing a finger at former VP of Engineering Damon Sicore as having âsecretly shopped around grandiose ideas about a free knowledge search engine, which eventually evolved into the reorg creating the Discovery team.â
692:
The whole project didnât live long and was ditched soon after the Search team was created, after FY15/16 budget was finalized, and it did not have the money allocated for such work ⌠However, ideas and wording from that search engine plan made their way to numerous discovery team documents and were
266:
isnât maybe the best, but we also know at some point it was an ambitious project to create a brand new search engine as an alternative to Google. Sometime in 2015, the WMF submitted a proposal to the Knight Foundation asking for a substantial amount of money to fund this project. It is described in
2271:
Well much of that all appears to be false - apparently, it was not very much pursued as a Google thing - that idea just never got off the launching pad. You discuss things with a funder precisely to spitball ideas - if your speculation is even true that it was someone at Knight who caused them to
1546:
Wales is quite often a liar, pure and simple. But every time someone raises this, even with examples, they find themselves very quickly sort-of ostracised because for some insane reason he has a lot of acolytes. I've not been around that much of late but the last example I can recall was, I think,
1050:
That's the "old hands" responsible for the mess Lila's been trying to clean up, right? That's the old hands who have been told to respect and respond to the community and readership, right; the crew who have had their pet folly projects shut down as silly, nonsensical wastes of time, right? I hope
777:
This is happening in spite of â not thanks to â dysfunction at the top. If you donât believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering wonât be long now. Our initial astonishment at the Boardâs unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The
1914:
Former VP of Engineering Damon Sicore, who as far as I know conceived the 'knowledge engine', shopped the idea around in secret (to the point of GPG-encrypting emails about it) with the idea that Google/etc form an 'existential threat' to Knowledge (XXG) in the long term by co-opting our traffic,
1713:
important part of WMF being able to innovate outside of existing budget areas. Grants are also typically opaque. I donât think the WMF has applied for many grants, at least based on its size. Iâm willing to bet that no other nonprofit the size of WMF has taken as little grant money as WMF has. So
1292:
Might be even better to get an independent body to do this review. Personally I saw the issues between the staff and ED as obvious as of mid Oct. The staff survey in Nov/Dec clarified things further. What has happened since November has not come as a surprise to me. The longer this is taken to be
1130:
documents the priorities as they were just around the time Lila joined the organization; she had little influence on these goals as she was still brand new. Again, with the exception of Flow being backburnered, these projects have either been successfully concluded to generally broad satisfaction
704:
At a time when Knowledge (XXG) has already-existing problems, the WMF was asking for money to basically create a whole new set of problems. That is the mark of an organization, if not a movement, adrift. Clearly, they pitched a search engine to Knight, and they asked for millionsâI have heard the
364:
to understand how we got here, I am pleased to say youâll find just what youâre looking for below, although Iâm afraid this whole thing is too large and multifaceted to do proper justice within the space of this already very long article. A full accounting may go back to the mid-2000s, when Jimmy
190:
is in open revolt. While the day-to-day volunteer efforts of editing Knowledge (XXG) pages continue as ever, the non-profit Foundation, or WMF, is in the midst of a crisis itâs never seen before. In recent weeks, WMF staff departures have accelerated. Within just the past 48 hours, employees have
1202:
Just thinking out loud here. It seems the board - or at least some members of the board - have been getting warnings from staff about the staff's relationship with the ED for over a year. Clearly it was an important issue. Yet the board did nothing. Might this have been mended, before it came to
325:
The logic is twisted, but you can follow it: most readers find Knowledge (XXG) through a search engine, so if the search engine that helped make Knowledge (XXG) the success it is today changes its mind and starts pointing elsewhere, better to get ahead of things and create a new alternative that
1820:
Based on public comments, private comments, and private discussions, the ongoing crisis of faith in the ED and board is a key factor in the increasing staff departures, as we continue to see Lila fail to improve in transparency, culture, accountability, strategic clarity, etc since the November
1588:
Lila could and should have been more candid about the Knowledge Engine project as the idea was evolving, and I hope she's learned from that, but under her the WMF has developed institutional structures that are intrinsically respectful of and responsive to the volunteers and readers. I hope she
832:
Honestly, I donât understand why the current leadership hasnât left yet. Why would you want to work at a place where 93% of your employees donât believe youâre doing a good job, and others have called you a liar (with proof to back it up) to your face, in front of the entire staff? I donât know
237:
The strange thing about the Knowledge Engine is that, until very recently, basically nobody knew anything about itâincluding the vast majority of WMF staff. Not until Heilman identified it as a central issue surrounding his departure from the Board had anyone outside the WMF staff ever heard of
1877:
Speaking of team name, âDiscoveryâ is not about stage one from that leaked plan. The team was initially called âSearchâ then almost immediately after realizing it also works on non-search projects (like maps) it was renamed to Search and Discovery then just Discovery. At the time of the second
1738:
Wikimedia has secured many larger & more complex grants, as early as 2008 when we were able to secure a $ 1M/year / three year grant from Sloan, which provided crucial support in the early years of WMF's growth. Since then WMF developed its major gifts capacity, and that team is generally
338:
to talk about it is, in fact, tearing the Wikimedia Foundation apart. Tretikov has lost all remaining credibility with Wikimedia staff and close community observers, not that she had much to begin with. As this week comes to an end, more staffers are quitting, remaining ones are complaining in
1986:" strategy proposal, and it wasn't discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, and the extent that remnants of such unserious, deprecated legacy language remained in actual grant documents was by an inadvertent lack of attention to detail, not by intentional fabrication.
636:
We are 10 months past the initial plans for this far-reaching, mission statement-busting project, six months past the award of a grant to pursue this quixotic effort, and not two months removed from the violent ejection of a Board trustee over the matter⌠and all you can say is âfeedback was
1693:
Given the funding amount of $ 250k, this was *not* a long, drawn out grant process. This grant must have gone from âquick first chatâ to âgrant agreementâ in a week or less. Grants of less than 250k are not approved by the Knight Foundation Board and are instead approved by VPs. They happen
1690:, and usually by junior staff. I could show you some of our old grant agreements, and youâd be blown away by how âoffâ the language is on the agreement versus on the proposals we sent in. The grant agreement language is designed to be informal, and is written largely based on conversations.
167:
1260:
board member who did due diligence on the issue. I'm left with the only possible conclusion that those who didn't see it didn't look. What a failure. This is a tragic situation for all concerned - not least Lila - and it could have been handled gently and discretely if confronted early
2251:
Is it still not opaque if the grant was discussed and worked on in secret for months before being publicly mentioned? (Recall that the first official disclosure of the grant came not from the WMF, but from the Knight Foundation listing it on their website.) I think you're setting up a
603:
Well, that is certainly one way to put it! Put another way, you have been backed into a corner defending the untenable proposition that Knowledge (XXG) has never considered building a search engine, and now that the mainstream press is reporting, based on your own documents, that you
843:
her owed to their insistence on moving ahead with the project above community and staff objections. Knowing what we do now, itâs inexplicable. The thinking now is: she obviously has to go, and the only reason the Board might have for not acting on it would be legal considerations.
1864:
The whole project didnât live long and was ditched soon after the Search team was created, after FY15/16 budget was finalized, and it did not have the money allocated for such work (umm, was it in April? in such case, this should have been soon after the leaked document was
1708:
I could not disagree more with your call for Lila Tretikovâs resignation. Itâs completely ridiculous. This is just a growing pain associated with WMF applying for foundation funding, something theyâve only done a literal *handful* of times in the past. Grant funding is an
837:
I love, and will always love Wikimedia, but I canât say the same about the current state of the Wikimedia Foundation. Iâve been around for nearly nine years now (nearly half my life), and it feels like that world is slowly crumbling away and Iâm powerless to stop it.
2391:
The thought that came to my mind is that Wikimedia should try to "focus on core competencies and outsource the rest". It's not Wikimedia's job to save us from Google. Building an internet search engine seems like an unnecessary and non-productive diversion of funds.
846:
For the sake of Knowledge (XXG)âs future, the Wikimedia Foundation needs new leadership. Lila Tretikov must resign, or she must be replaced. This is the most challenging article Iâve ever had to write. The next one, I hope, will be about the start of the turnaround.
387:, when Jimmy Wales called Heilmanâs claims that transparency issues were at the core of his dismissal âutter fucking bullshitâ. Jimmy Wales is known for occasionally lashing out at pestering editors on his Talk page, and this certainly seems to be one of those times.
1574:
was particularly effective in highlighting the needs and wants of our readers, as well as those of the editing community, and this has informed the ongoing strategy design process - a process that has deep community input. That strategy, in turn, informs funding
245:
that a team called âSearch and Discoveryâ was âextraordinarily well-staffed with a disproportionate number of engineers at the same time as other areas seem to be wanting for themâ. This despite the fact that, as we know now, the WMF had sought funding from the
2187:
So, regardless of the boilerplate in the agreement - Knight and WMF clearly have a common understanding that it is for early research into the Knowledge (XXG).org search function of Knowledge (XXG) (aka., Wikimedia) projects, not any sort of Google. --
522:
Whether Wikimediaâs plans just naturally evolved or whether it was responding to the communityâs response is difficult to say, but the organization is now, at least, claiming it does not want to square up to Google, but just improve its own product.
220:
But other issues remained unresolved: WMF employee dissatisfaction with Tretikov was becoming better known beyond the walls of its San Francisco headquarters, while questions mounted about the origin, status and intent of a little-known initiative
1765:
The grant application started as early as Apr. It involved a fair bit of communication and a number of meetings / presentations. It was awarded by Knight Sept 1st, and not approved by the board until Nov. So it was an 8 month process at least.
1198:
is right. I'm being hyperbolical and manichean, largely due to the late hour and the loneness of my voice. As someone on wikimedia-l just put it, I'm looking at a black box (WMF) and deducing causes from correlations, which is a dangerous
2358:
is provided in the piece above). In typical WMF fashion, your damage control has backfired completely. And for those still keeping track of the many WMF failures, the new Gather extension will be completely disabled here on 1 March 2016.
1181:, I'm starting to wonder, what is your narrative? Wouldn't it be better to try to calm things down? Reading things like "unfairly and unempathetically dismissing with a heroes/villains storyline" isn't quite what I would've expected.
1437:
Wnt, I have no idea whatsoever why you think this has anything to do with how much money anyone makes. Really and truly, I can't see any relationship at all between what you wrote and what this Signpost/blog article talks about.
795:
has been sent some details). Please act. If for some reason the board cannot act, please state that reason. Signal to us, community and staff, by concrete words if not by deeds, that you understand the magnitude of the problem.
1701:
The last Knight Foundation grant I got took two weeks from conversation to grant agreement. The final text in the grant agreement was written by staff at the Knight Foundation and had several important mistakes present in it.
705:
number placed at $ 100 million over 5 yearsâlater reduced to $ 12 million, of which Knight provided $ 250K to build a planâessentially a pat on the head: âsince we like you, hereâs a few bucks to come up with a better ideaâ.
1267:
they're discussing the usefulness of rigorous post-mortems after crises like these. I hope the WMF commissions such an investigation, and I hope whoever performs it doesn't shy away from examining the board's role in this.
619:
What are we not doing? Weâre not building a global crawler search engine. Weâre not building another, separate Wikimedia project. ⌠Despite headlines, we are not trying to compete with other platforms, including Google.
2117:? Do you think it is problematic that some members of the Board, such as Guy Kawasaki, rarely-to-never edit the projects and appear to have no familiarity with them? I look forward to a discussion of these questions. --
2207:
wrote a powerful piece on this matter. I agree particularly with him that the Knowledge Engine is actually a really good idea. It is really disappointing that it is brought down not by popular disagreement with the
1139:
to the WMF, don't worry. Been there, done that, got the closet full of t-shirts, and it was my call to leave the org. But this is a crisis, people I care about are affected, and I will speak out as and where I see
1077:. Which "pet folly projects" have been shut down since the new ED's start date in this apparent grand spring cleaning process nobody has ever heard of? Flow is in maintenance mode (which is not a euphemism as its
696:
In the hindsight, I think our continued use of Knowledge Engine name is misleading and should have ended when internet search engine plans were ditched. No, weâre really not working on internet search engine.
1004:
720:
Another big question: how does this affect Knowledge (XXG)âs public reputation, particularly among donors, most especially among foundations? You have to think the answer is a lot. The WMF looks like the
1762:
That grant application has been asked for multiple times by multiple people. No one has formally released it. Doing so would not however confirm your suspicions or reflect badly on the Knight Foundation.
1256:, you're awesome. Regarding the different views on the board about the seriousness of the problems: the breakdown in the staff-ED relationship is so clear now, it must have been clear six months ago, to
973:
1719:
963:
2338:"I strongly object to the notion that I have been unwilling to discuss the Knight grant, "knowledge engine" or anything else. There is no evidence offered for this because it simply isn't true.--
1798:
I strongly object to the notion that I have been unwilling to discuss the Knight grant, "knowledge engine" or anything else. There is no evidence offered for this because it simply isn't true.--
395:
Tretikov made her first public, community-facing statement about the Knight Foundation grant, which was welcomed for showing some self-reflection but also raised more questions than it answered.
242:
968:
916:
907:
558:
451:
268:
214:
77:
1412:
what the lower 75% make. If some major personalities want to leave, great - if not, we can reevaluate and try a bigger cut. The problem with laying out big bucks for decision makers is they
2289:, that seems right to me, from my limited knowledge. Deryck, agreed that the underlying idea is really good, but opacity and lack of engagement caused many problems, including this furore.
1522:
Whoops! I realize now what I said was being read as a more radical plan than I'd initially intended, which was only to go after the top quarter, not the top three-quarters. My apologies.
2174:
The timeline some are discussing seems a little off. The Knight Grant was not completed until it was signed on November 20, 2015 (November was also when the Wikimedia FAQ page was created
307:
1705:
Iâm not sure why senior WMF didnât explain this more clearly. My best guess is they didnât want to malign the Knight Foundation. Nothing about this grant process seems incompetent to me.
566:
Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those values in a volunteer capacity at this time.
946:
571:
Messing up my timeline a bit, but still worth noting: Hocutt, the developer who had made public internal fears about silencing dissent, announced her own (albeit temporary) departure in
1759:
The grant agreementâs language is amazingly close to the grant applicationâs language. The grant application was written and submitted in Aug 2015 by the WMF to the Knight Foundation.
2373:
I recall it is established that James Heilmann was withhold background papers for the two topics Jimmy Wales mentions. They were not released (to certain Boardmembers) voluntarily. -
2415:
1670:
blown out of proportion. While the Knowledge (XXG) community may have important underlying concerns, there is nothing shady or unusual about this particular grant process. At all.
940:
455:
361:
199:
55:
44:
407:, on Tretikovâs discussion page no less, that employees were being âcensured for speaking in ways that I have found sharply critical but still fundamentally honest and civilâ.
1397:
This "motion of no confidence" stuff reminds me a bit of that Star Wars movie. We still don't know nearly enough to be confident who the villains and heroes (if any) may be.
267:
still-emerging documents from this grant request as a âsearch engineâ, and several early mock-ups seemed to suggest this was in fact the idea, as seen in internal documents
958:
413:
255:
978:
744:
Within the last 24 hours, the trickle of public criticism about Tretikov has become a widening stream. Some of it is taking place in the above comment thread, plenty is
632:
Community feedback was planned as part of the Knowledge Engine grant, and is essential to identifying the opportunities for improvement in our existing search capacity.
628:
a search project originating from WMF, and by now we know that is obviously false. Without any acknowledgement in this letter, it is useless. But itâs worse than that:
250:
of many millions of dollars, receiving just $ 250,000 in a grant not disclosed until months later. As recently as this month, a well-considered but still in-the-dark
599:
Over the past few weeks, the Wikimedia community has engaged in a discussion of the Wikimedia Foundationâs plans for search and discovery on the Wikimedia projects.
685:
in Max Semenik, another Discovery team engineer, mostly unknown to the community, and who was willing to take off his PR hat to say what everyone pretty much knew:
2468:
392:
311:
379:
Instead I want to focus on whatâs happening this week. But first we have to fill in some of the blanks. To do so, youâll want to wind back the clock a few weeks:
446:
itself to the WMFâs own wiki, confirming for the first time, in public, that WMF was describing the project as âthe Internetâs first transparent search engineâ.
210:, whose involvement in an anti-competitive scheme as a Google executive led him to resign the position amidst outcry from the staff and community (see previous
486:, always snarky, but with a decent summary of where things stood last week, just before it became newsworthy. I definitely recommend this February 15 story by
1939:
To believe you, and to believe that you only ever meant to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this, I would have to believe that
1620:. Efforts to improve our apps and content were the first five. Not saying internal search could not use some improvement but that was not our long term goal.
824:
In the early morning hours of February 19, a WMF software engineer named Kunal Mehta wrote an impassioned, rather forlorn post on his personal blog, titled: â
771:
halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in the press and in professional circles.
21:
713:
Sicore left in July 2015. A big remaining question, for which there is no answer at this time: when the actual grant was submitted to the Knight Foundation.
2443:
1666:
I worked at a nonprofit for several years, and received several grants from the Knight Foundation. I feel the specifics of this case have been very, very,
755:, where staffers previously not known for voicing internal dissent have been speaking quite frankly about how bad things are at 149 New Montgomery Street.
328:
Is this actually something the WMF can accomplish? Is this within the WMFâs scope? Is this something that will help Knowledge (XXG) accomplish its mission?
2438:
2433:
1881:
In the hindsight, I think our continued use of Knowledge Engine name is misleading and should have ended when internet search engine plans were ditched.
182:
and is republished with his permission. The views expressed in this article are his alone and do not reflect any official opinions of this publication.
1126:
As for your argument, it is simply false. The tech priorities have not shifted significantly, to the extent that they can be identified at this point.
2272:
modify the idea, that shows it was not much of a deliverable idea or commitment by the WMF, as an organization, to even go there, in the first place.
624:
This seems to be true, insofar as there is no search project currently. However, Wales had previously locked himself into the position that there was
709:
682:
674:
652:
443:
2428:
226:
817:
That is the complete text of her emailed post. That is really all she had to say, in a public thread specifically criticizing her leadership and
689:
Yes, there were plans of making an internet search engine. I donât understand why weâre still trying to avoid giving a direct answer about it. âŚ
2182:
1858:
Yes, there were plans of making an internet search engine. I donât understand why weâre still trying to avoid giving a direct answer about it.
1423:
And as for decisions? Well, let's try and elevate community processes like the Wishlist into something that most users actually know about.
701:
had to come from a low-level engineer indicates there is a major problem, and speaks to the fact that the WMF simply cannot go on this way.
2258:
2118:
1874:
However, ideas and wording from that search engine plan made their way to numerous discovery team documents and were never fully expelled.
778:
slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local and specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly.
615:
After much boilerplate about the growth of Knowledge (XXG) and its many achievements, Tretikov and Moran finally get around to the point:
487:
2114:
1723:
1264:
In the "Bring back Sue Gardner" thread on Andrew's Knowledge (XXG) Weekly Facebook group, in the responses to Jonathan Cardy's comment
2025:, which I hadn't heard of before today. A desire for secrecy might have been the rationale for not saying that more directly. Compare
1598:
1277:
1212:
1127:
1106:
1060:
708:
Mysteries remain: where did the idea come from, who championed it, when did it dieâor when did it recede and what happened afterward?
370:
2423:
928:
588:
366:
49:
35:
17:
1868:
I donât think anybody but the certain champion of the project has considered competing with Google with any degree of seriousness.
1404:
fix for this: WMF needs to reduce salaries at the top end. Lay out all the employees in terms of pay percentile, everyone below
481:
206:, a popular representative of Knowledge (XXG)âs volunteer base, before shifting to the unpopular appointment to the WMF Board of
2229:
all the ideas people decide not to pursue should be discussed? They would have no time to eat or sleep, let alone do any work.
2064:
inform the grant application? Is it okay with you for Wales to call something a "total lie" which is actually true? And to call
404:
2152:
appointment of Geshuri (though could be related to same top staff disfunctioning issue), and those extreme Jimmy Wales posts. -
1970:
At least "it simply isn't true" is an improvement over statements like "it f-ing simply isn't true". The statements may not be
1779:
1633:
1306:
1240:
535:
that Luis Villa, head of the Community Engagement department and previously a member of the WMFâs legal team, would be leaving.
294:
Why would Knowledge (XXG) consider building a search engine, anyway? The most likely answer is fear of being too dependent on
2354:
You have been willing to discuss these, you just haven't been willing or able to tell the truth about them (and evidence for
2082:
1961:
1602:
1293:
addressed the fewer okay options will be available to the board. Not sure what the positions of my fellow board members are.
1281:
1216:
1110:
1064:
494:
879:, who argues: âraffic per se is not the goal, the question should be about how to drive back human attention to the sourceâ.
579:
on February 17, noting her leave was âdue in part to stress caused by the recent uncertainty and organizational departures.â
540:
At least Tretikov seemed to be in control of that one. Because the next day Anna Koval, a manager of the education program,
1585:
The WMF have accepted the FDC's proposal that the WMF submit to the same reporting standard they expect of their chapters.
1578:
The Community Resources Team surveyed the community and discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their
725:. Why would you give it money? And right now, the Knight Foundation specifically must be asking what itâs got itself into.
331:
Heilmanâs departure suggests the former was an issue, and the ongoing furor is because the latter obviously did not occur.
202:
to 2016. Controversy in the first weeks of the year focused on the unexplained dismissal from the WMF Board of Trustees of
738:
561:
between the Knowledge (XXG) volunteer community and the professional WMF staff. Careful with her words, Bouterse wrote:
30:
Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov: Examining the impact of the knowledge engine
2401:
2382:
2368:
2347:
2322:
2303:
2281:
2266:
2238:
2219:
2197:
2161:
2143:
2126:
2101:
2086:
2042:
2013:
1995:
1965:
1926:
1830:
1807:
1787:
1783:
1754:
1727:
1659:
1641:
1637:
1606:
1560:
1531:
1506:
1483:
1469:
1447:
1432:
1388:
1379:
1333:
1314:
1310:
1285:
1248:
1244:
1220:
1190:
1147:
1114:
1089:
1068:
1045:
1035:
595:, and not at the Knowledge (XXG) community who knew which information gaps actually needed to be filled in. It began:
498:
2212:, but by this furore caused by opacity and disengagement within the WMF and between WMF and the volunteer community.
505:
except to see how the media was, for a brief moment, cluelessly reporting that Knowledge (XXG) was taking on Google.
1743:
which gives you a good view into the sheer scale of the program over the years. Even Knight has previously given a
1617:
303:
2177:). They then had 60 days to payout, and during that 60 days Knight made the joint announcement, which says it is:
437:
to Knowledge (XXG) editors that any suggestion WMF had ever considered building a search engine was âa total lieâ.
2318:
2277:
2234:
2193:
1980:
in top positions has proposed or is proposing that; Sicore's proposal (if this allegation is accurate) wasn't a "
2449:
2262:
2122:
1203:
this, if the board had behaved in a timely, responsible fashion? That's rhetorical, to no one in particular. --
640:
Finally, the closest thing to acknowledging the Knowledge Engine was, at some point, actually a search engine:
591:â. Alas, it wasnât terribly clarifying: it seemed aimed at the clueless mainstream journalists like the one at
511:
1265:
678:
of the authors and while there are current WMF staff listed, they are not the sole authors of the document.â
1944:
1227:
Different people on the board had different opinions regarding how serious the issue was and how to fix it.
343:
1922:
1826:
1594:
1273:
1208:
1102:
1056:
811:
644:
It is true that our path to this point has not always been smooth, especially through the ideation phase.
583:
Finally, on February 16, Lila Tretikov published an open letter (co-authored by Vice President of Product
2397:
2343:
2216:
1803:
1329:
191:
begun speaking openly on the web about their lack of confidence in the leadership of executive director
302:
of its total traffic. In recent years, Google has started providing answers to queries directly on the
1370:
Why is it that I trust Doc James more than the other 8 members of the WMF Board of Trustees combined?
179:
2314:
2313:). Every idea has to go through tons of refinement before it's presented, that's just good process.
2286:
2273:
2230:
2189:
1898:
1131:(SUL finalization, HHVM, Phabricator), or they are continuing (VisualEditor, Mobile Apps, Analytics).
799:
And then, about 10 minutes later, Lila Tretikov posted to this very conversation thread, and this is
187:
876:
584:
1775:
1655:
1629:
1302:
1236:
1031:
745:
2077:
1956:
833:
everything thatâs going on right now, but weâre sick right now and desperately need to move on. âŚ
763:
528:
As all this was unfolding, the exodus of key WMF staff was accelerating. On February 8, Tretikov
468:
424:, published February 8, still the most comprehensive evaluation of this multifaceted controversy.
401:
326:
people will use. I guess? If we accept this reasoning, we still have to confront questions like:
2134:
A story in desperate search for a conspiracy. Sorry, but this is completely out of proportions.
1849:
229:â. What was it all about? How do all these things tie together? What on Earth is going on here?
222:
166:
1817:
1740:
825:
800:
787:
759:
550:
541:
529:
94:
2097:
2038:
1991:
1918:
1822:
1751:
1590:
1579:
1502:
1375:
1269:
1204:
1144:
1120:
1098:
1086:
1074:
1052:
1000:
729:
572:
288:
279:
247:
124:
1646:
Not sure why you say Max Semenik is unknown to the community. He is an administrator here as
2393:
2378:
2339:
2213:
2157:
2139:
2009:
1835:
1799:
1556:
1479:
1443:
1325:
1186:
1650:, and previously served as a steward and an administrator of the Russian Knowledge (XXG).--
807:
For a few 2015 accomplishments by the product/technical teams you can see them listed here:
318:
account page, identified âreadership declineâ as Knowledge (XXG)âs most recent challenge.
104:
339:
public, and it seems impossible to imagine Lila Tretikov remaining in charge much longer.
667:
c. Seriously incompetent and should never be put in charge of writing a grant application
134:
1571:
1474:
Ah. Sorry, I seem to have been reading a very different discussion than you have been.
2364:
2204:
2069:
1948:
1767:
1748:
1651:
1621:
1294:
1253:
1228:
1195:
1178:
1141:
1136:
1094:
1083:
1051:
the board gives her enough time to finish the job. But then, the board is spineless. --
1027:
872:
472:
207:
1384:
I'm grateful for the detailed timeline and links; thank you so much for this rundown.
812:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/2015_Wikimedia_Foundation_Product_and_Technology_Highlights
2462:
2073:
2022:
1952:
1848:
The wording of the grant agreement did not bear you out. Since then, Max Semenik has
1527:
1465:
1428:
722:
417:
351:
263:
203:
192:
2026:
1878:
renaming, we already had no plans of actually doing any internet search engine work.
821:. One gets the feeling, at this point, even Lila Tretikov just wants it to be over.
783:
665:
b. Have misled the Knight Foundation as to your intentions for their grant money, or
2297:
2093:
2049:
2034:
2001:
1987:
1513:
1498:
1385:
1371:
752:
114:
1951:
and Brion are all liars, and you are the only one telling the truth all along. --
1934:
1906:
1843:
144:
2374:
2153:
2135:
2018:
2005:
1940:
1902:
1647:
1552:
1517:
1475:
1454:
1439:
1182:
889:
proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. Itâs a total lie.â
430:
355:
335:
239:
1871:
The scrapping was finalized in summer, after said champion and WMF parted ways.
1744:
475:) about the poor strategic decision-making that led to the current controversy.
1042:
299:
1747:
grant for mobile to Wikimedia. The problems here are of a different nature.--
1078:
174:
The introduction to an unreleased WMF presentation about the Knowledge Engine
2360:
2253:
1548:
315:
1818:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081997.html
1915:
potentially reducing the inflow of new contributors via the 'reader -: -->
1613:
1523:
1492:
1461:
1424:
557:
mailing list: that of Siko Bouterse, another veteran leader who had long
154:
72:
Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov
1589:
survives this crisis but, if she doesn't, I hope those structures do. --
2292:
786:âone of WMFâs more outspoken staffers, even prior to the last 48 hoursâ
655:
was brutal, bordering on uncivil, from a retired editor. It concluded:
1838:, just before the Knight Foundation grant agreement was released, you
758:
Yesterday afternoon on the mailing list, a developer named Ori Livneh
2175:
1672:
Hereâs some very important specifics pertaining to the grant process:
295:
1698:
quickly. This is likely why many people at the WMF felt blindsided.
751:, but a lot of it has moved to a semi-private Facebook group called
442:
Just hours later, WMF Communications uploaded the Knight Foundation
1730:(not logged in so as to not burn my own grant relationship bridges)
429:
We then jump ahead to February 11, when Wales was still doing his â
1408:
the top 25% stays the same, everyone above that gets cut down to
1933:
These statements are entirely incompatible with what you said:
1861:
There has never been any actual technical work on this project.
663:
a. Flat out lying, and hoping we donât actually read the grant,
334:
Meanwhile, the extreme unwillingness of Lila Tretikov and even
54:
2170:
Nov. 20 Grant for payment within 60 days and the announcement
1688:
written by the grantee, but instead by the Knight Foundation
927:
728:
342:
278:
165:
34:
365:
Wales harbored ambitions of building his own search engineâ
2092:
careful about saying the same kinds of things about him.
2030:
1884:
No, weâre really not working on internet search engine.
1839:
1016:
1009:
989:
517:
is a good enough summary, at least for public purposes:
434:
384:
1400:
I may be crazy, but my guess is that there's a simple
225:, but previously (and more notoriously) known as the â
1569:
I approve of the direction Lila's taking the WMF in.
673:
A few hours later, a member of WMFâs Discovery team
1014:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
608:building a search engine, one certainly has to say
306:(SERPs), often powered by Knowledge (XXG), thereby
1901:, in which she comments on the above statement by
376:I think thatâs more than I can accomplish here.
308:short-circuiting visits to Knowledge (XXG) itself
287:A slide from the April 2015 presentation for the
1816:Jimmy, please weigh in on this thread publicly:
1616:. We had a consultation of our readers in 2015.
766:by explaining why they could not remain silent:
2179:
1907:"My recollection of events is close to Maxâs."
830:
805:
792:
768:
687:
669:None of these options look good for the WMF.
657:
642:
630:
617:
597:
564:
520:
200:a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad start
8:
1618:Search and discovery was on the list at 13th
790:and turned his comments back to Jemielniak:
462:but have not been made public at this time.
262:good idea; sure, Knowledge (XXG)âs on-site
2060:propose just that, and that this proposal
1714:this seems like both a growing pain and a
1675:The widely circulated grant agreement PDF
819:all but explicitly calling for her removal
454:not only of the grant agreement, but also
2469:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2016-02
1128:mw:Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals/Q1
589:Clarity on the future of Wikimedia search
741:on Discovery by the Wikimedia Foundation
510:However incomplete, I think this upshot
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1720:2600:1010:B001:974D:A1FF:B07E:3146:626B
1017:
993:
855:
471:by Knowledge (XXG) veteran Liam Wyatt (
71:
178:This article was originally posted on
414:So, whatâs a knowledge engine anyway?
256:So, whatâs a knowledge engine anyway?
29:
7:
1082:that's another story. Beyond that?--
1684:language on the grant agreement is
269:revealed for the first time by the
1322:independent body to do this review
291:featuring "Knowledge (XXG) Search"
56:
28:
1073:You'll have to be more specific,
1026:Motion of no confidence, anyone?
999:These comments are automatically
549:And then on Friday, February 12,
1887:And will not work in the future.
587:) on the Wikimedia blog titled â
310:. Tretikov herself, in a rambly
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
2416:putting together the next issue
1739:excellent at what it does. See
1420:how to code a better MediaWiki.
737:A slide from an already-public
412:Donât skip the aforementioned â
1911:Brion Vibber says at the FAQ,
1010:add the page to your watchlist
480:You might then have a look at
298:, which sends Knowledge (XXG)
1:
2402:18:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
2383:08:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
2369:08:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
2348:13:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2323:12:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
2304:08:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
2282:01:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
2267:01:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
2239:00:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
2220:00:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
2198:22:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2162:01:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
2144:22:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2127:19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2102:23:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2087:21:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2043:20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2014:19:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1996:18:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1966:16:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1927:17:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
1831:15:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1808:13:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1788:13:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1755:13:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1728:12:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1660:09:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1642:06:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1607:02:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1561:01:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1532:03:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1507:02:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1484:01:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1470:01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1448:00:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1433:00:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1389:00:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1380:23:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
1334:01:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
1324:, would be a very good idea--
1315:00:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
1286:22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
1249:15:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
1221:05:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
1191:04:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
1148:01:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
1115:00:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
1090:15:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1069:04:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1046:22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
1036:22:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
551:a very big resignation letter
2203:As the article pointed out,
456:three supplemental documents
400:On February 1 WMF developer
762:by community Board trustee
542:announced her own departure
469:powerfully-argued blog post
452:the most detailed breakdown
223:officially called Discovery
2485:
1677:was not written by the WMF
1572:The community consultation
760:replied to a plea for calm
739:November 2015 presentation
304:search engine results page
2115:Board Noticeboard on Meta
1580:current Idea Lab Campaign
653:first comment on the post
458:which were leaked to the
693:never fully expelled. âŚ
2066:other community members
559:provided a crucial link
360:If you need a detailed
238:itâthough in May 2015,
2185:
2072:liars in the process?
2031:Knowledge (XXG) search
1741:foundation:Benefactors
1007:. To follow comments,
932:
840:
815:
797:
780:
753:Knowledge (XXG) Weekly
733:
710:One answer is supplied
698:
675:gamely stepped forward
671:
646:
634:
622:
601:
568:
525:
347:
283:
198:All in all, itâs been
170:
39:
1974:incompatible. No one
931:
732:
681:Finally, a day later
346:
282:
169:
38:
1897:Lila has started an
1386:Sumana Harihareswara
1003:from this article's
826:Why am I still here?
788:voiced his agreement
544:on the mailing list.
371:Wikia Search in 2008
188:Wikimedia Foundation
1410:the 75th percentile
782:Shortly thereafter
746:still happening at
683:a true hero emerged
648:And nothing more.
416:â investigation by
994:Discuss this story
933:
920:"Special report" â
801:all she had to say
764:Dariusz Jemielniak
734:
717:they were making.
495:and this follow-up
493:about the fiasco (
435:publicly insisting
362:timeline of events
348:
312:January 29 comment
284:
171:
45:â Back to Contents
40:
2085:
1964:
1682:Importantly, the
1018:purging the cache
974:Technology report
877:Dario Taraborelli
367:Wikiasari in 2006
289:Knight Foundation
248:Knight Foundation
180:the author's blog
50:View Latest Issue
2476:
2452:
2414:needs your help
2302:
2300:
2295:
2080:
2076:
1959:
1955:
1936:
1908:
1845:
1772:
1626:
1521:
1496:
1458:
1299:
1233:
1021:
1019:
1013:
992:
964:Featured content
951:
943:
941:17 February 2016
936:
919:
912:"Special report"
911:
899:
896:
890:
886:
880:
869:
863:
860:
300:at least a third
254:article asked: â
227:Knowledge Engine
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
62:
60:
58:
57:17 February 2016
2484:
2483:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2448:
2446:
2441:
2436:
2431:
2426:
2419:
2408:
2407:
2315:Alanscottwalker
2298:
2293:
2290:
2287:Alanscottwalker
2274:Alanscottwalker
2231:Alanscottwalker
2190:Alanscottwalker
2172:
2078:
1957:
1768:
1622:
1511:
1490:
1452:
1295:
1229:
1023:
1015:
1008:
997:
996:
990:+ Add a comment
988:
984:
983:
982:
944:
939:
937:
934:
923:
922:
917:
914:
909:
903:
902:
897:
893:
887:
883:
870:
866:
861:
857:
742:
735:
659:You are either:
553:dropped on the
467:Also read this
444:grant agreement
358:
349:
292:
285:
175:
172:
162:
158:
155:William Beutler
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2482:
2480:
2472:
2471:
2461:
2460:
2447:
2442:
2437:
2432:
2427:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2410:
2409:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2259:71.119.131.184
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2223:
2222:
2171:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2119:71.119.131.184
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2053:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2027:Wolfram search
1937:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1909:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1888:
1885:
1882:
1879:
1875:
1872:
1869:
1866:
1862:
1859:
1846:
1833:
1811:
1810:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1763:
1760:
1733:
1732:
1718:growing pain.
1663:
1662:
1644:
1612:Amazing piece
1610:
1564:
1563:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1421:
1417:
1414:make decisions
1398:
1392:
1391:
1382:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1262:
1200:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1137:User:Eloquence
1132:
1124:
1079:commit history
998:
995:
987:
986:
985:
981:
976:
971:
969:Traffic report
966:
961:
956:
954:Special report
950:
938:
926:
925:
924:
915:
906:
905:
904:
901:
900:
891:
881:
864:
854:
853:
852:
834:
808:
736:
727:
668:
666:
664:
660:
581:
580:
563:
562:
546:
545:
537:
536:
519:
518:
507:
506:
477:
476:
464:
463:
439:
438:
426:
425:
409:
408:
402:Frances Hocutt
397:
396:
389:
388:
350:
341:
286:
277:
208:Arnnon Geshuri
173:
164:
163:
160:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
69:Special report
68:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2481:
2470:
2467:
2466:
2464:
2451:
2445:
2440:
2435:
2430:
2425:
2417:
2413:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2390:
2389:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2357:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2301:
2296:
2288:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2255:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2221:
2218:
2215:
2211:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2184:
2183:
2178:
2176:
2169:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2111:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2084:
2081:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2054:
2051:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2023:Wolfram Alpha
2020:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1984:
1979:
1978:
1973:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1963:
1960:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1913:
1912:
1910:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1889:
1886:
1883:
1880:
1876:
1873:
1870:
1867:
1863:
1860:
1857:
1856:
1854:
1853:
1851:
1847:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1771:
1764:
1761:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1753:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1731:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1712:
1706:
1703:
1699:
1697:
1691:
1689:
1687:
1680:
1678:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1664:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1625:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1586:
1583:
1582:accordingly.
1581:
1576:
1573:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1544:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1494:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1456:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1383:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1298:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1232:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1149:
1146:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1011:
1006:
1002:
991:
980:
977:
975:
972:
970:
967:
965:
962:
960:
957:
955:
952:
948:
942:
935:In this issue
930:
921:
913:
895:
892:
885:
882:
878:
874:
868:
865:
859:
856:
850:
849:
848:
844:
839:
835:
829:
827:
822:
820:
814:
813:
809:
804:
802:
796:
791:
789:
785:
779:
775:
772:
767:
765:
761:
756:
754:
750:
749:
740:
731:
726:
724:
723:Keystone Kops
718:
714:
711:
706:
702:
697:
694:
690:
686:
684:
679:
676:
670:
661:
656:
654:
649:
645:
641:
638:
633:
629:
627:
621:
616:
613:
611:
607:
600:
596:
594:
590:
586:
578:
576:
570:
569:
567:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
543:
539:
538:
534:
533:
530:announced on
527:
526:
524:
516:
515:
509:
508:
504:
502:
496:
492:
491:
485:
484:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
423:
419:
418:Andreas Kolbe
415:
411:
410:
406:
403:
399:
398:
394:
393:On January 29
391:
390:
386:
385:on January 25
382:
381:
380:
377:
374:
372:
368:
363:
357:
353:
352:Lila Tretikov
345:
340:
337:
332:
329:
323:
319:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
290:
281:
276:
274:
272:
265:
264:search engine
259:
257:
253:
249:
244:
241:
235:
234:
230:
228:
224:
218:
216:
213:
209:
205:
204:James Heilman
201:
196:
194:
193:Lila Tretikov
189:
184:
183:
181:
168:
161:
156:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
2412:The Signpost
2411:
2355:
2337:
2310:
2209:
2186:
2180:
2173:
2133:
2065:
2061:
2057:
1982:
1981:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1890:For shizzle.
1855:To clarify:
1769:
1715:
1710:
1707:
1704:
1700:
1695:
1692:
1685:
1683:
1681:
1676:
1674:
1671:
1667:
1623:
1591:Anthonyhcole
1587:
1584:
1577:
1570:
1565:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1321:
1296:
1270:Anthonyhcole
1257:
1230:
1205:Anthonyhcole
1099:Anthonyhcole
1053:Anthonyhcole
953:
947:all comments
894:
884:
873:this comment
867:
858:
845:
841:
836:
831:
823:
818:
816:
810:
806:
798:
793:
781:
776:
773:
769:
757:
747:
743:
719:
715:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
688:
680:
672:
662:
658:
650:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
625:
623:
618:
614:
609:
605:
602:
598:
592:
582:
574:
573:yet another
565:
554:
531:
521:
513:
500:
489:
483:The Register
482:
459:
448:The Signpost
447:
422:The Signpost
421:
383:Letâs start
378:
375:
359:
333:
327:
324:
320:
293:
270:
260:
251:
236:
233:Deep breath.
232:
231:
219:
211:
197:
185:
177:
176:
159:
2450:Suggestions
2394:Praemonitus
2340:Jimbo Wales
1899:FAQ on Meta
1836:Jimbo Wales
1800:Jimbo Wales
1648:User:MaxSem
1326:Ozzie10aaaa
1001:transcluded
875:from WMFâs
784:Asaf Bartov
748:Wikimedia-l
575:Wikimedia-l
555:Wikimedia-l
532:Wikimedia-l
497:) but skip
490:Motherboard
433:â routine,
431:Baghdad Bob
356:Jimmy Wales
336:Jimmy Wales
2311:de rigueur
1905:, saying,
1575:decisions.
1402:structural
637:plannedâ?
612:about it.
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2016-02-17
2444:Subscribe
2254:straw man
2205:Wittylama
2070:Doc James
2000:Hold on,
1977:currently
1949:Doc James
1865:created).
1770:Doc James
1749:Eloquence
1716:necessary
1711:extremely
1652:Ymblanter
1624:Doc James
1460:the top.
1297:Doc James
1231:Doc James
1199:practice.
1179:Eloquence
1142:Eloquence
1095:Eloquence
1084:Eloquence
1028:TomStar81
1005:talk page
610:something
585:Wes Moran
514:The Verge
473:Wittylama
316:Meta-Wiki
273:last week
2463:Category
2439:Newsroom
2434:Archives
1972:entirely
1780:contribs
1634:contribs
1614:User:WWB
1599:contribs
1307:contribs
1278:contribs
1241:contribs
1213:contribs
1107:contribs
1061:contribs
910:Previous
593:Newsweek
501:Newsweek
460:Signpost
271:Signpost
252:Signpost
243:observed
215:coverage
212:Signpost
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
2210:concept
2094:Wbm1058
2074:Andreas
2056:Sicore
2050:Wbm1058
2035:Wbm1058
2002:Wbm1058
1988:Wbm1058
1983:serious
1953:Andreas
1514:Bawolff
1499:Bawolff
1372:Carrite
1261:enough.
1121:Anthony
1075:Anthony
488:Viceâs
314:on her
115:Twitter
2375:DePiep
2217:yck C.
2154:DePiep
2136:Jeblad
2019:Risker
2006:Risker
1941:MaxSem
1903:MaxSem
1745:$ 600K
1553:Sitush
1518:Risker
1476:Risker
1455:Risker
1440:Risker
1183:Jeblad
1140:fit.--
405:stated
296:Google
240:Risker
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
2429:About
2068:like
2029:with
1919:brion
1823:brion
1784:email
1638:email
1603:email
1311:email
1282:email
1254:James
1245:email
1217:email
1111:email
1065:email
1043:Coren
959:Op-ed
851:Notes
626:never
512:from
503:story
499:this
217:).
16:<
2424:Home
2398:talk
2379:talk
2365:talk
2361:Fram
2356:that
2344:talk
2319:talk
2278:talk
2263:talk
2235:talk
2194:talk
2158:talk
2140:talk
2123:talk
2098:talk
2039:talk
2010:talk
1992:talk
1945:Lila
1923:talk
1850:said
1840:said
1827:talk
1804:talk
1776:talk
1724:talk
1696:very
1668:very
1656:talk
1630:talk
1595:talk
1557:talk
1549:Ched
1528:talk
1516:and
1503:talk
1480:talk
1466:talk
1444:talk
1429:talk
1376:talk
1330:talk
1303:talk
1274:talk
1237:talk
1209:talk
1196:Erik
1187:talk
1103:talk
1057:talk
1032:Talk
979:Blog
918:Next
871:See
651:The
577:post
450:has
420:for
369:and
354:and
186:The
145:Digg
2214:Der
2083:466
2062:did
2058:did
1962:466
1686:not
1605:)
1524:Wnt
1493:Wnt
1462:Wnt
1425:Wnt
1406:75%
1284:)
1258:any
1219:)
1119:Hi
1113:)
1067:)
1041:â
828:â:
606:are
153:By
80:â
2465::
2400:)
2381:)
2367:)
2350:"
2346:)
2321:)
2294:SJ
2291:â
2280:)
2265:)
2237:)
2196:)
2160:)
2142:)
2125:)
2100:)
2079:JN
2041:)
2012:)
1994:)
1958:JN
1947:,
1943:,
1925:)
1852:,
1842:,
1829:)
1806:)
1786:)
1782:¡
1778:¡
1726:)
1658:)
1640:)
1636:¡
1632:¡
1601:¡
1597:¡
1559:)
1530:)
1505:)
1482:)
1468:)
1446:)
1431:)
1378:)
1332:)
1313:)
1309:¡
1305:¡
1280:¡
1276:¡
1268:--
1247:)
1243:¡
1239:¡
1215:¡
1211:¡
1189:)
1109:¡
1105:¡
1063:¡
1059:¡
1034:)
908:â
803::
774:âŚ
275:.
258:â
195:.
2418:.
2396:(
2377:(
2363:(
2342:(
2317:(
2299:+
2276:(
2261:(
2233:(
2192:(
2156:(
2138:(
2121:(
2096:(
2037:(
2008:(
1990:(
1921:(
1825:(
1802:(
1774:(
1752:*
1722:(
1654:(
1628:(
1593:(
1555:(
1526:(
1520::
1512:@
1501:(
1495::
1491:@
1478:(
1464:(
1457::
1453:@
1442:(
1427:(
1374:(
1328:(
1301:(
1272:(
1235:(
1207:(
1185:(
1145:*
1101:(
1087:*
1055:(
1030:(
1022:.
1012:.
949:)
945:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
