Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-05-17/News and notes

Really great job this week, and. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * " could reopen wounds." what a load of crock. So WMF cannot recognize it was thoroughly disgusting and leave it behind. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether there's been a misunderstanding with the percentages quoted in the FDC recommendations, or if it's just unclear wording, but to clarify: in the recommendation table the "Change in allocation from last year" column refers to the recommended funding amounts, not the asks. So when you say "93% of an ask that was up by 50% from last year's" for WMAM, as an example, the recommended amount is up 50% from last year's grant, but their ask was actually different by 61% (see this table). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mike, my misreading. I hope it's fixed now. Tony   (talk)  08:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That looks correct now, thanks for the quick fix. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Signpost team (esp. Tony) for taking the time to report on this (and for having done some MoS editing on the report itself). It is the press' prerogative to highlight issues it sees as important, of course, but I hope that the decision to highlight a couple of negative comments to specific teams in the Signpost summary doesn't give give those comments undue weight. Not the least of which is because we [the members of the FDC] also wrote compliemtary comments. More importantly, is that we went to a lot of effort to try to write a report that was "actionable" at all levels - not only high level comments to the board and ED, but also comments to each departmental area, and also comments to the level of individual programs/goals (in the tables of the 'appendix'). It's a delicate balance between being too high-level to be useful, and too low-level that's just 'bikeshedding'. So, further down the report to the WMF, the more specific the feedback becomes. if something was important enough for wider attention, then it would appear in the department-level comments, or the overall comments.

What I'm trying to say is that I hope our main feedback to the Board doesn't get lost: namely that our chief recommendation is that the Board undertakes a proper externally run review of itself (including but not limited to the scope we specified) and that it does this before a permanent ED is appointed. Wittylama 09:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , : Without coming off as defensive because my program in particular got called out, I want to walk through how some of this analysis reads.


 * 1) First-off, FDC did an incredible, commendable, thorough, specific, and tough/fair job. I'm impressed with the scale of the task you tackled. Secondly, Signpost did as usual yeoman's work in distilling the essence of complex topics for community understanding.
 * 2) However, to quibble, FDC questioned only Q2 metrics not yearly metrics for Wikipedia Library and other teams it mentioned. That detail was dropped from the Signpost bullet list, in a theme here of context gone missing.
 * 3) Q2 KPI disappointments are very much explicable: The conflict with Lila hit its peak internally for staff in Q2 whereas community didn't feel its force until Q3. Q2 was the quarter of the dreadful November all-staff meeting, our depressing engagement survey, collective staff statements to the Board, James Heilmans' removal, and Christmas break.  It was also the first 3 months of the new PC&L reorg under Rosemary.  All of that is 'out there', in our QR reports or other news forums, but the context goes missing and leaves the impression that there is a deeper flaw somewhere or just ignorance.  We know really well what happened in Q2 and the demoralizing and distracting effect it had on staff (albeit not equally for everyone).
 * 4) Year-over-year metrics for TWL and CR are actually quite strong, a conclusion that wouldn't follow for a casual Signpost reader who relies on it, as I do, for a quick way to get up to speed on what happened and what's worth paying attention to.
 * 5) Metrics are cyclical or variable for many teams. Whether that is unpredictability for publisher partners who respond (or don't respond) to our outreach emails, or the number of Grants that come through at a given time, our programs do not necessarily expect to meet single targets, because in many cases our targets are dependent on a number of factors out of our control. You can rebut that we should pick better KPIs, but the problem is deeper than picking the perfect one and calibrating it more precisely.
 * 6) No single metric can ever tell the story of performance and growth (unless you're just racing against a clock perhaps).  KPIs are not helpful when isolated, and taken out of context--that's equally true for our grantees, and for us as an organization.
 * 7) Liam, I really appreciate you bringing the broader thrust to put this narrative back in perspective. It's just a natural feature on a multi-faceted analysis that each facet brings new room for interpretation or misinterpretation.
 * 8) Finally, I really do think often about how the Wikipedia Library can be better and more effective, but that internal quest is rarely captured in a KPI, even though I like the pretense they give of telling us how good a job we are doing. Life is more rich and complicated than that, thank god ;)
 * --On behalf of just my own opinion. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To rephrase Christophe Henner's comments:I won't offend or rock the boat. Just sex and drugs,and rock and roll.--Catlemur (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)