Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/Op-ed

← Back to Op-ed

Discuss this story

• It is, perhaps, inevitable that boards need some in camera time (see, though, Ricardo Semler's book Maverick for why this may be less than one would think). However the more that can be open "warts and all" the more community trust is engendered. I see no reason that the open part of board meetings should not be live streamed, as some other organisations have done. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
  

• Who funded the visual editor with a restricted grant? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  Was this common knowledge? I remember the general outline of the VE deployment dramahz, superprotect, and so on, and it seems as though this would have changed the tenor of the discussion considerably had it been known. Choess (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  VE was funded by 3.6 million from the Stanton Foundation [1] in 2011. From my understanding it was not a restricted grant but I have heard rumblings that this funding was part of the reason for the early roll out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying, James. My reading of Sue's blog was that she has no problem with restricted grants, provided they're for something we'd be doing anyway. We do have to be careful not to let the tail (funder) wag the dog, though, and avoid taking on projects that will consume resources (ED's attention, legal time, floor space, etc.) to the detriment of higher-priority projects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  My reading is she felt they need to be strictly managed and accepted with care. They are not a problem per say but can easily turn into a problem. If the WMF is required to chose between a funder and a super majority of volunteers I hope they would think long and hard before siding with the funder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• How was the media viewer funded? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, DocJames. Yes, we need as much transparency as default, even if we find it difficult. We edit transparently, warts and all. Anyone can see our mistakes, we've learned not to care. Most especially with the financing, it is important for transparency as far as possible. WiseWoman (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• DocJames, do you believe your cultural experience as a Canadian contributes to and informs your perspective on transparency? I ask, because I'm wondering if American business culture, or the culture of Silicon Valley in particular, places less emphasis on the importance and value of transparency. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I sort of approached the board believing that many of the values we as Wikipedians hold would be shared their as well. I think it was more of a WP community perspective versus a Silicon Valley perspective rather than any single nationality per say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• This Op-ed by User:Doc James gives the impression that James Heilman has nothing substantial to say about his six months sojourn aBoard and his ousting. One can argue if the intersideral void is or is not an useful model of transparency, but this is rather not what is usually implied when using the word transparency in its political meaning. Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This op ed is not specifically about my ousting per say or specifically about my time on the board. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)