Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/In focus
Discuss this story
- It is not possible to discuss the details of failure to maintain confidentiality in an open forum without providing more information to support better guesses. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the investigative journalism, transparency and keeping the community informed. For myself, a good executive for Wikipedia is someone from the education sector, with an ethos of non-profit, like a professional librarian or professor. I never understood the move to SF - WP should have moved to DC which is where most global non-profits are HQ. Or keep the technology at SF and move executive to DC. In SF, Wikipedia will be under constant pressure from insiders to collaborate with their connections at Silicon Valley companies. In DC, the collaborations will be with other NGOs and the government itself which is the best way for NGOs to survive. -- GreenC 19:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- San Francisco (including the greater Bay Area and its ugly cousin in SoCal) is the de facto world leader in innovation. If you can't understand the move to SF, then I suggest you need to get on a plane and walk around the city to get a handle on the pulse of technology. Furthermore, the ethical dilemmas at work in this field have been a problem since the 1960s, and have never been resolved. There is zero innovation inside the Beltway, so your comment leaves me confused. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's no secret that the lease on the current office space ends in September 2017, and the WMF is looking at options. As for reasoning to move to SF in the first place, this mailing list post seems like a good summary. Anomie⚔ 01:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I used to work around the corner, and I think it's a great location. While they would have been happier in the Mission, that bird has probably flown. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's no secret that the lease on the current office space ends in September 2017, and the WMF is looking at options. As for reasoning to move to SF in the first place, this mailing list post seems like a good summary. Anomie⚔ 01:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- San Francisco (including the greater Bay Area and its ugly cousin in SoCal) is the de facto world leader in innovation. If you can't understand the move to SF, then I suggest you need to get on a plane and walk around the city to get a handle on the pulse of technology. Furthermore, the ethical dilemmas at work in this field have been a problem since the 1960s, and have never been resolved. There is zero innovation inside the Beltway, so your comment leaves me confused. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's quite obvious the SF area is the technology world capital but it is not at all obvious Wikipedia is primarily a technology organization. Did you read Liam Wyatt's "Battle for the soul of the WMF" in the same Signpost issue? Wikipedia is about education, learning etc. Wikipedia is not a technology organisation in the style of a dot-com company. As for DC, it's a catch term that means the Washington metropolitan area -- DC proper has about 700,000 people, the metro area has almost 10x that, it's all the same conglomerate (Richmond to Baltimore). Other than SF, there is more high tech in DC than anywhere in the country, and far more of non-tech organizations Wikipedia should be partnering and working with. Wikipedia will likely end up in DC eventually because legislation drives innovation. -- GreenC 02:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your perspective, but I strongly disagree with it. It's now 2016. All organizations are technology-driven—except bureaucratic, government agencies. Those that are exceptions to the rule are at this moment busy taking over Palo Alto, they are not in DC. If you believe that legislation drives innovation, then there isn't really anything else to talk about, as that statement is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not all organizations are technology organizations, even if they rely on technology. -- GreenC 03:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- All modern organizations and business sectors are driven by technology. That does not make them a "technology organization". Your friends in Washington are operating in Silicon Valley for a reason. Look at Palantir Technologies as only one example. Heck, Silicon Valley itself was created by military funding. Innovation isn't legislated, it's nurtured like an infant and allowed to grow and experiment like a teenager. When the timing is right, a mature idea is unleashed on society by an individual or group. You need the freedom to fail repeatedly and the ability to take risks. The government model doesn't work that way and lacks the necessary agility and ability to turn sharp corners. That's why innovative companies like SpaceX are doing the job for NASA. Government could work, but it doesn't because it has been hijacked and co-opted by special interests. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point but this isn't the place to discuss. No one is advocating centralized bureaucratic control by the US government of Wikipedia. But as stated earlier, there is a reason most of the major NGOs are based in DC (area) because they understand that to enact change (or make progress) they ultimately need proper legislation. You brought up Elon Musk, Solar City is no longer operating in Nevada because of unfriendly legislation. Those who ignore government will be out competed by those who control government (in that case the fossil fuel industry). -- GreenC 16:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your example actually supports my point. Government has been hijacked and co-opted by special interests, in this instance, by the Koch brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council who are opposing solar energy across the US to support utilities in individual states, often in opposition to federal positions. Moving to DC would only help those inside the Beltway. Innovation isn't helped by legislation, it is hindered, and the example you gave proves this point. ALEC and other interest groups lobby Washington to stifle innovation, not promote it. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's right, government drives innovation. It may drive it off the cliff as in North Korea, or it may drive it to the moon as the US government usually does. Regardless, if your not influencing the driver then you are at a disadvantage as Solar City discovered. -- GreenC 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please provide me the name of a single company in Silicon Valley that attributes their successful innovation to the government. Just one, please. Your claim is absurd. The government is the last entity on the planet that anyone points to for innovation. Where's the fiber to our homes, the free or cheap unlimited data, and the universal Wi-Fi? Please. You want the Wikimedia Foundation to move to DC to help influence legislation? To what purpose and for what end? Public policy making is inherently a non-innovative process, which depends on stable, unchanging environments. It's the exact opposite of where we need to be and is a proven failure when it comes to technological innovation. Might as well just close down the WMF, because it will have the same outcome. What you are arguing for is the death knell of Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the big NGOs are based in Washington for a reason. Wikimedia is not a Silicon Valley style dot com company and treating it as such is a recipe for trouble. See "Battle for the soul of the WMF". -- GreenC 03:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please point me to the most significant "success" achieved by a so-called NGO in the last year. Good luck with that, btw. You couldn't answer my question about which Silicon Valley org attributes their innovation to the government because there isn't one. QED. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wikimedia is a non profit (NGO), it's not a tech dot-com company though certain parties wish to treat it that way. The innovation discussion has mostly been your personal politics, are you Libertarian? The discussion reminds me of my college-era Ayn Randian roommate. In any case the Washington area has plenty of technical resources it's second only to Silicon Valley. An emphasis on innovation presumes that is the core mission of Wikimedia but as explained in "Battle for the soul of the WMF" that is far from a given. Washington is home to a majority of institutions that Wikipedia should be (and is) partnering with. Library of Congress, National Archives, educational, legal issues such as copyright and privacy - these are all things best served in Washington. -- GreenC 18:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- You have failed to answer every question I have asked. Again, please point me to the latest successes of NGOs in Washington. I'm going to guess that you can't because they are too busy sucking on the large teat of the pendulous Capitol Hill. That's the problem with being in DC in a nutshell. I am not a libertarian in any sense of the word, as my contributions demonstrate. Btw, the term "dot com" hasn't had insider currency for almost 16 years, so you sound silly saying it. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wikimedia is a non profit (NGO), it's not a tech dot-com company though certain parties wish to treat it that way. The innovation discussion has mostly been your personal politics, are you Libertarian? The discussion reminds me of my college-era Ayn Randian roommate. In any case the Washington area has plenty of technical resources it's second only to Silicon Valley. An emphasis on innovation presumes that is the core mission of Wikimedia but as explained in "Battle for the soul of the WMF" that is far from a given. Washington is home to a majority of institutions that Wikipedia should be (and is) partnering with. Library of Congress, National Archives, educational, legal issues such as copyright and privacy - these are all things best served in Washington. -- GreenC 18:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please point me to the most significant "success" achieved by a so-called NGO in the last year. Good luck with that, btw. You couldn't answer my question about which Silicon Valley org attributes their innovation to the government because there isn't one. QED. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the big NGOs are based in Washington for a reason. Wikimedia is not a Silicon Valley style dot com company and treating it as such is a recipe for trouble. See "Battle for the soul of the WMF". -- GreenC 03:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please provide me the name of a single company in Silicon Valley that attributes their successful innovation to the government. Just one, please. Your claim is absurd. The government is the last entity on the planet that anyone points to for innovation. Where's the fiber to our homes, the free or cheap unlimited data, and the universal Wi-Fi? Please. You want the Wikimedia Foundation to move to DC to help influence legislation? To what purpose and for what end? Public policy making is inherently a non-innovative process, which depends on stable, unchanging environments. It's the exact opposite of where we need to be and is a proven failure when it comes to technological innovation. Might as well just close down the WMF, because it will have the same outcome. What you are arguing for is the death knell of Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's right, government drives innovation. It may drive it off the cliff as in North Korea, or it may drive it to the moon as the US government usually does. Regardless, if your not influencing the driver then you are at a disadvantage as Solar City discovered. -- GreenC 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your example actually supports my point. Government has been hijacked and co-opted by special interests, in this instance, by the Koch brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council who are opposing solar energy across the US to support utilities in individual states, often in opposition to federal positions. Moving to DC would only help those inside the Beltway. Innovation isn't helped by legislation, it is hindered, and the example you gave proves this point. ALEC and other interest groups lobby Washington to stifle innovation, not promote it. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point but this isn't the place to discuss. No one is advocating centralized bureaucratic control by the US government of Wikipedia. But as stated earlier, there is a reason most of the major NGOs are based in DC (area) because they understand that to enact change (or make progress) they ultimately need proper legislation. You brought up Elon Musk, Solar City is no longer operating in Nevada because of unfriendly legislation. Those who ignore government will be out competed by those who control government (in that case the fossil fuel industry). -- GreenC 16:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- All modern organizations and business sectors are driven by technology. That does not make them a "technology organization". Your friends in Washington are operating in Silicon Valley for a reason. Look at Palantir Technologies as only one example. Heck, Silicon Valley itself was created by military funding. Innovation isn't legislated, it's nurtured like an infant and allowed to grow and experiment like a teenager. When the timing is right, a mature idea is unleashed on society by an individual or group. You need the freedom to fail repeatedly and the ability to take risks. The government model doesn't work that way and lacks the necessary agility and ability to turn sharp corners. That's why innovative companies like SpaceX are doing the job for NASA. Government could work, but it doesn't because it has been hijacked and co-opted by special interests. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not all organizations are technology organizations, even if they rely on technology. -- GreenC 03:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your perspective, but I strongly disagree with it. It's now 2016. All organizations are technology-driven—except bureaucratic, government agencies. Those that are exceptions to the rule are at this moment busy taking over Palo Alto, they are not in DC. If you believe that legislation drives innovation, then there isn't really anything else to talk about, as that statement is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Alas - for a second I feared I was reading a blog post at Infowars. Or at the website which must not be named. Collect (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- yes, as someone from DC, please don't come here, the cost of living is as high as San Fran, and the group think is worse. (don't need no AOLification) even though they say all the servers are in Chantilly Virginia. and the NGOs are here for the World Bank money, not a big funding source. go back to Florida, say a nice college town like Tallahassee, get some spanish speaking culture, in the sun. (although, did you notice how many employees are remote?) Duckduckstop (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
← Back to In focus