Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted

News and notes

Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted

Maher named interim executive director of the Foundation

Patricio Lorente, chair of the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees, announced on 10 March that the interim executive director of the WMF will be Katherine Maher. Maher, currently the chief communications officer, will assume the post on March 14—two weeks prior to the anticipated departure of current executive director Lila Tretikov, who resigned last week effective March 31.

The announcement comes after the Board, in a surprise move, deferred the selection process to the C-level-team at the WMF. In his announcement, Lorente wrote:

“

In choosing an interim ED, the C-levels started by identifying immediate priorities for the coming months, including building trust, improving communications, and filling key leadership positions. They felt, and we agree, that Katherine is the right person to lead the organization while it addresses these and other important issues. Additionally, this will allow the rest of the executive team to focus on critical organizational functions, including community and engineering management, fundraising, and strengthening our human resources function.

”

Lorente's message was followed by a message by Maher, in which she wrote in part:

“

As a movement, we've had some challenges lately. We've started on a process of change, but as Lydia Pintscher recently reminded us, "Change happens at the speed of trust." We will need to work together over these coming months to build that trust, and open critical lines of communication and accountability. I get the sense from many people that that's exactly what they'd like to do: absorb the lessons we've learned, re-engage with each other, and get back to advancing our global movement.

”

Maher's appointment was greeted with an overwhelmingly positive response from current and former WMF employees and community members, including former Board members Florence Devouard (Anthere) and James Heilman (Doc James).

Maher joined the WMF in April 2014, shortly before Tretikov became executive director. Maher had worked for The World Bank, UNICEF, and Access Now, an advocacy group for open-access information and Internet freedom. While she does not have an engineering background, she is no stranger to some of the technical challenges that may be faced by the Foundation in the future. G

Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy

Questions still surround the December departure of James Heilman from the WMF Board of Trustees, ousted in December on an 8–2 vote. Pete Forsyth, a former WMF employee who left the Foundation in 2011, re-sparked this controversy by posting to the Wikimedia-l mailing list a February 29 email from Jimmy Wales to Heilman and Forsyth, prompting a debate about the appropriateness of posting private correspondence, and about Wales' comments and role in the Heilman ouster.

In the email, Wales pondered the reasoning behind Heilman's actions:

“

One hypothesis is that you're just a liar. I have a hard time with that one.

Another hypothesis is that you have a poor memory or low emotional intelligence or something like that – you seem to say things that just don't make sense and which attempt to lead people to conclusions that are clearly not true.

Another hypothesis is that the emotional trauma of all this has colored your perceptions on certain details.

”

While Wales characterized his email as an olive branch, a number of commentators were stunned by the email, labeling it emotionally manipulative or even gaslighting. Others thought that revealing private email was a violation of trust and damaged the possibility or reconciliation between the two parties. G

Draft WMF strategy

The draft WMF strategy has been posted on Meta and is open for feedback:

“

Over the course of a month-long consultation (Jan 18 – Feb 15, 2016), we received community feedback on 18 pre-defined strategic approaches and received over 300 suggestions for additional approaches. We've evaluated this feedback alongside other relevant factors, such as current Foundation capacity and resources, to identify the three most promising strategic approaches.
The three proposed strategies focus on improving our ability to reach new audiences and retain our current readers and contributors. They incorporate testing different approaches, iterating on feedback and results, and scaling successful outcomes.

”

The posted strategy statement focuses on three points, corresponding to the three previously defined challenges of "reach", "communities" and "knowledge":

We will better understand and respond to the needs of our global users so that more people can share in free knowledge.
- Key points: understanding whether users are looking for general or in-depth information, what hardware they are using, improving the user experience, especially in mobile (web and app) contexts, and engaging readers in countries and communities with low Wikimedia awareness.
We will increase volunteer retention and engagement through improved programs, experiences, and resources.
- Key points: investigating ways to increase volunteer retention and engagement (including mentoring, training, support and outreach programs and identifying ways to recognize volunteer contributions).
We will increase and diversify knowledge by developing high-priority curation and creation tools for user needs.
- Key points: addressing technical and experiential barriers to contributing such as complex interfaces and workflows, especially on mobile, and facilitating high-volume contributions from GLAM institutional partners.

The page on Meta contains further details and rationales relating to these three generic goals, and explains how priorities identified during the community consultation fed into them.

The draft strategy will be open for community comment and feedback until March 18th. The incorporation of this feedback is scheduled to take place between March 18th and April 1st; any major changes resulting from this feedback will be highlighted in the final draft.

The Wikimedia Foundation will use the month of March to finalize its draft 2016–2017 Annual Plan. The plan will be based on the proposed strategy, incorporating initiatives and work projects believed to have the greatest impact on these strategic approaches. The Wikimedia Foundation's draft annual plan will be submitted for comment by April 1st.

On the topic of mobile accessibility – a key point in the draft strategy – see also the Signpost's report on the new Wikipedia iOS app, in this week's "In the media" section. AK

Brief notes

Wikipedia.org updated: As announced on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, the WMF's Discovery team has given Wikipedia's global front page a facelift. Using Wikidata entries, they have placed a prominent search box beneath the standard globe; users can select a search language from a drop-down menu. Several concerns have been listed on Wikimedia-l, although at least one (the inclusion of non-free images) is being addressed via Phabricator. T
Cross-wiki notifications here at last: One long-wished-for editor tool has finally arrived in the form of cross-wiki notifications. Coded by the WMF's Collaboration team, it is available through the beta features tab in each editor's preferences. At least one editor has already discovered years-old notifications from other Wikimedia sites. A help page is available; the mailing list announcement of the feature is here. T

← Previous "News and notes"

Next "News and notes" →

In this issue

9 March 2016 (all comments)

News and notes

In the media

Op-ed

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I fear I find reposting an email here is certainly unacceptable, whether one finds its earlier reposting to the mailing list improper or not. Collect (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? It's already the matter of widespread public discussion. We can't put that genie back in the bottle. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, no use closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. But I have to say that User:Peteforsyth was completely out-of-line releasing a private e-mail without permission. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jimmy Wales and I have never had a substantive professional relationship. There is no reason for him to expect that I would keep an unsolicited email private; he never requested that I do so; and he himself has not, to date, expressed any concern about my having shared such an email. He was welcome, of course, to continue the discussion he put in motion by sending me this unsolicited email; but my reply went unanswered. I violated no agreement, nor even any request, by publishing the email. -Pete (talk)
    - However, I did not take the decision to publish such an email lightly. I did ensure that Doc James consented, since he was the one who was insulted in the message. As I said on the list:
      Manipulative behavior thrives in an environment where a person can say different things to different audiences, and can speak freely with the expectation they will not be held accountable for their words. -Pete (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I stated on the mailing list, there is not much one can say in response to an email such as Jimmy's.[1] I was and am more than happy to discuss the evidence behind my statements or to clarify my position but I do not see his email to me as a request for such a conversation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's an observation I've made over the years, in part based on my own experience, in part part based on other incidents (I hope this stuff helps explain a dynamic, but sadly it never seems to do any good): In some disputes, I believe Jimmy Wales interacts with people as if he is a senior executive or superior officer who is "chewing out" a lowly subordinate. I mean in that sort of style, that social mode. That is, he's not looking to have "a conversation" with you, on terms of equal status. Rather, he's giving you a chance to explain yourself to an angry superior, in the presumed context of having done something very wrong. You're expected to endure the recitation of how you have messed up due to personal failings, and to be contrite to him. Note this often does not work well when the other person doesn't think of themselves as being "outranked", much less as having done something very wrong. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it would do not only Jimmy but the rest of the movement good if he stood for community election in 2017. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Not going to happen. He's a former options trader. He doesn't make bets where he has little to gain and much to lose. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the same was sort of said before a few other recent major changes. If there was a RfC with a super majority in support it would be hard to say no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Par for the course for Wales to engage in personal attacks like that. DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agree that email reflects poorly on the sender--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my view is coloured by years as a committed trade unionist, but to my mind any manager who would speak to one of their subordinates like that (and in writing!) would be guilty of workplace misconduct. If that email was sent from a superior at my current place of work, and the recipient complained, they'd have a fair bit of explaining to do to HR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Lankiveil, you definitely work in a far more civil & fair environment than the ones in the US I am familiar with. Complaining to an American HR about an abusive boss is (at best) a waste of time, & (at worst) begging to be fired. (And I regret I have say that.) This is probably why Wales thinks he can get away with that. -- llywrch (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. WMF's director's name is Kat! --violet nese 23:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the entire email thread. I recommend that others trying to understand all of this do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from where? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083144.html and keep hitting the next message link. There are currently 37 messages in the thread. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think people are reacting viscerally to this email. The root of the whole imbroglio is very likely a communication problem. Jimmy appears to be trying his best to get to the root of the later disagreement, even if his phraseology might not be ideal, it is far better than things that have been said publicly by both sides. A "sit down" with an honest broker would not necessarily be a bad thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Telling someone they're either dishonest, an idiot, or over-emotional, is never a way to start a constructive conversation. And as Lankiveil says, such an email would result in disciplinary action against the sender in many companies. I'd also suggest anyone who thinks it is ok try sending something similar through the Wikipedia "email this user" function to half-a-dozen admins, and seeing how long they retain the ability to use Wikipedia email, or even to edit. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rich Farmbrough you mention worse thing being publically stated by both sides. I am unclear where I have made personal attacks against JW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, from discussions with fellow Wikimedians, that you are by no means a "side" of one person.

But the important point is that you and Jimmy are talking past each other. From the outside I see that both your positions can be compatible with different scenarios where neither party is behaving deliberately badly.

If so, it would be good if this could be clarified, lessons learned and we all move on. I am aware that is a difficult thing to make happen. You would have to both feel it "worth the candle", and even then it may not get any further than "He thought I meant X, when I meant Y, and there's no convincing him otherwise."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes we have of course disagreed regarding the correct interpretation of the KF grant application and documents. But I do not see stating that we disagree as a public personal attack. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?

Home

About