Around the Wikimedia movement

 

Budget for 2017-2018 released

The Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan for FY2017-2018 has been released. A surprise item in the report was a reference to “our forthcoming move to a new office space”. A total of 697,000 USD (Table #4) has been budgeted for the move. The foundation moved from Florida to San Francisco in 2008, but there has been little or no information made public about their latest decision to move. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation will discover they have an educational rather than a technical mission after all, and will accordingly move to the East Coast to escape the Silicon Valley brogrammer culture.

Legal department mascot

Purrrrrcy (5 r’s)

Rory (WMF), The legal department’s mascot has retired. Rory (WMF), who seems to have been a project of the legal interns, was replaced by Purrrrrcy (with 5 r’s), a few days ahead of the arrival of the new general counsel.  In the past, Rory’s page has been edited by a number of staff and volunteers, including GeoffBrigham (WMF), the staff account of the former general counsel.  Like Rory, Purrrrry’s major role will be inaction.  Unlike Rory, who had a static page on meta with a redirect from the user name, Purrrrrcy has a user account, so the edits behind this mascot remain hidden.

Rory (WMF), alleged father of Purrrrrcy

Technical Code of Conduct

The Technical Code of Conduct was approved, after input from 140 editors, and two years of discussion.  See special report from The Citation at Technical Code of Conduct.

WMF reorganization

The foundation’s technology and product departments were reorganized.

Turmoil at Wikimedia France

Wikimedia France has announced a new board, after rumors of personnel turnover. For anyone who speaks French, this entry at Le Bistro is supposed to have all the details.

Reorganization at WP criticism sites

Wikipedia criticism sites have reorganized. Wikipediocracy has announced resignations of its current organizers and moderators with new ones to be determined.  During the Wikipediocracy hiatus, the criticism site Wikipedia Review Proboards was formed, and a third site was formed and disappeared.

SuSa and Community Health new staff

The Community Health Initiative has hired four new members, Caroline Sinders, Product Analyst; Sydney Poore, Community Advocate with Support and Safety (SuSa); Trevor Bolliger, Product Manager; and David Barratt, Software Developer. A new hire for the open Community Advocate position has not been announced.  The new members will be working with Danny Horn and Ryan Kaldari from Community Tech, and Patrick Early and James Alexander from SuSa. (See Staff and contractors.)  In November 2017 the Board of Director endorsed the community health initiative in their Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces.  In January 2017, the WMF received 500,000 USD for the project from the Craig Newmark Foundation.

Elections: FDC and ombudsperson

Elections for Funds Dissemination Committee and Ombudsperson were held from June 3 to 11, 2017.  Elected to the Funds Dissemination Committee were members Michał Buczyński (User:Aegis Maelstrom), Lorenzo Losa (User:Laurentius), Liam Wyatt (User:Wittylama), Osmar Valdebenito (User:B1mbo), Katherine Bavage (User:Leela0808), and ombudsperson Kirill Lokshin (User:Kirill Lokshin).

Strategy process interim results

The Wikimedia strategy process continues.  As a result of feedback from Cycle 2, just concluded, it has been announced that the timeline has been changed, and a “New Voices” track has been added.  The results of groups participating in Cycle 2 are posted at “Sources“.

 

 

 

1 Comment

  1. There has been no meaningful reorganization at Wikipediocracy, largely the same people are involved, just in slightly different roles, and it shows. As part of this reform, they talked of outreach to disgruntled former participants, this turned out to merely be a second chance offered to people who had left or been banned, but only if they were willing to operate under the same conditions that ensured they left first time around. Their blog still routinely contains the same discrediting flaws, assumptions and basic factual mistakes they always did, and the comments section which nominally exist to highlight such things through reader feedback, is still censored the way it always has been, ironically in precisely the way they criticise WMF platforms. Their most recent act of self insulation from reality was to boast about the impact of a Wikipediocarcy tweet as if it showed the blog it talked of was a success and had an impact, but which in reality had generated just one retweet and no likes. Attempts to highlight this in the comments, were of course rejected as being harmful to the egos of the people still at the very heart of that failed collective of so called investigators. Post reformation, Wikipediocracy is basically unchanged in its basic purpose, a place where people wholly invested in Wikipedia can exchange doomed ideas of how to fix Wikipedia, and where demotivated critics can keep rehashing the same ‘news’, as if things like BLP issues and poor writing were really not well established features of Wikipedia. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on them that their actual record of achievement if change or further media exposure in this regard, is beyond pitiful. Their secondary purpose, taking pot shots at Jimmy Wales and airing other pointless ten year old grievances which bear little relation to the issues and flaws of present day Wikipedia, has been similarly a giant waste of their time. Yet they persist, largely because it seems the new management, such that it is, doesn’t seem all that interested in preventing those who have nominally stepped down from continuing to do what they did to bring the place to its knees these last few years. As such, in their forum, which uspposedly has a brand new moderating team, they are also still hostile to people who highlight their flaws (and I’m talking about other critics, not defensive Wikipedians), they still arrogantly act as if they are the only game in town, and indeed even boast of and celebrate people who take destructive action against other critics who do not share their philosophical approach. Hence the proliferation of multiple other critic fora in the last year or two, all with different staff and thus different approaches, but all at least unified in a basic purpose of not being Wikipediocracy. Some of them have since been taken downx evidently at the hands of people unwilling to openly admit their actions, making it a good bet that it is equally lilely to have been done by people associated with Wikipediocracy unhappy at the success of these new upstarts, than any disgruntled Wikipedians. Naturally, it is a fair bet the WMF and the hard core kool aid drinking Wikipedians are ecstatic at the current state of the critic movement, whose most active participants at Wikipediocracy have a very long record of being easily dismissed by the upper tiers of Wikipedians, even though they are all foolishly active Wikipedians themselves. The clear and obvious lack of equality in the so called Wikipedia community is just one of many of the fundamental issues a so called investigatory and exposure site like Wikipediocracy should be aiming to highlight at this stage of Wikipedia’s existence, having had years to fix these sort of issues, to analyse in depth for the benefit of the poor masses who really have no clue as to how Wikipedia really works, but they do not. It isn’t even on their radar, probably because it is not news to them, and explaining it doesn’t involve an angle against Jimmy or their other favourite bogeymen or bogeytech. Anyone who signs up to the forum to discuss it will either be ignored at best, mocked at worst, or have to put up with discussion being derailed, disrupted or otherwise funked up with assorted Wikipedian’s bizarre thoughts on the world and the pedia (being Wikipedians, their defining trait is typically an inability for rational thought, especially when it comes to basic truths about their chosen hobby). Amusingly, their so called management will at the same time likely invite that person to write a blog for them on the subject, as if serious and knowledgeable critics who are treated in such a way would be at all minded to help them revive their fortunes with some actual renewed audience attention and actual influence. Would a blog about the hyoocritical and self destructive existence of Wikipedia’s social heirarchy and their inability or indeed unwillingness to eradicate it, generate more than one retweets and zero likes? You bet. Who knows, maybe outlets like this, which are largely pro-Wikipedia, will be more willing to publish such material, in the interests of genuine debate and education. The erstwhile SignPost has certainly had a better record publishing such material than the supposedly independent Wikipediocracy (and if you even dare to suggest a site which is so deeply entwined with, and incredibly respectful of, some serious immersed Wikipedians, isn’t exactly independent as it claims, and your welcome will wear out very fast).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.