Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-02/News and notes

Discuss this story

Please make a notation that the external link to Andrew Lih's statement requires logging into Facebook in order to read it. Risker (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for putting this piece together. I realize that there's probably a limited set of photos available on Commons, but File:Katherine Maher - Lila Tretikov - Wikimedia ED - May 2014 13.jpg seems very... unflattering. The red faces are pretty demon-y. Maybe this is just my monitor? Could we look at alternate images or is it too late for that? Or maybe we could just adjust the color levels in this photo? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a lot of images on Commons before I settled on this one. I wanted a picture of Tretikov addressing the staff specifically, and not a headshot or one from a random panel discussion or a publicity photo or a photo we've seen a hundred times before. I know it's not perfect but there's a limited pool to choose from, and this was the best choice of the ones I saw. Gamaliel (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, what are we? some fashion magazine where the models are airbrushed? Get over it. - Sitush (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a photo I took at Wikipedia 15 that seems appropriate to Tretikov's farewell message: File:Lila_Tretikov_at_Wikipedia_15_-_2.jpg Funcrunch (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It never occurred to me that the faces are "red", and I viewed the image at the top a number of times during Gamaliel's preparation. I see now, but does it really matter enough to tinker with colour saturations and re-upload? Tony (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see people smile though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see people interacting, too. It looks human. No need to expect an informal image like this to be perfectly lit. Andrew Dalby 10:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the photo, I like Gayle's unicorn party hat. --Jcornelius (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the color-corrected version of the photo (I cannot update the file for some reason). --SSneg (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of uploading that to Commons, with proper credit of course. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the story. "Wales also quietly replaced Tretikov at a planned March 13 event with Board member Guy Kawasaki at SXSW Interactive." is very confusing. It should be "will replace", rather than "replaced", right? And the phrasing makes it sound like maybe Wales himself, or Kawasaki, or both of them together is the replacement. Maybe something like "Wales, at a planned March 13 event with Board member Guy Kawasaki at SXSW Interactive, will announce Tretikov's replacement." Staecker (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Yeah, that sentence really needs to be reworked if anyone came away with the impression that Lila's replacement will be named at SXSW. Lila was scheduled to have a "chat" with Guy at SXSW; obviously, since she is not in a position to represent the WMF any longer, Jimmy will sit down for that "chat" with fellow board member Guy Kawasaki. There will be no announcing of anyone's replacement at SXSW. Risker (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this "story" I start to wonder if the Wikimedia movement would be better off without The Signpost. Jeblad (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm going to delete the Signpost and then everyone will magically get free candy and ponies. Gamaliel (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced replaced. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It seems that the board has played some role in all of this, including development (?agitation for) the knowledge engine, removal of JH for ?disagreement, and promotion without proper scrutiny of Arnnon. Will the signpost be covering the makeup and role the board has played in this? It seems to me a lot of this has been pinned on Lila's head with the board's role quite understated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are expecting the post by Jimmy Wales that he'll support the return of James Heilman in the Board, and btw that he was the one promoting that already since the beginning of last November. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, Board of Trustees member Guy Kawasaki recently tweeted a link to an article entitled "8 warning signs that your staff are about to quit". He has not commented whether this article could have helped with staff issues at the WMF, or if he has an interest in the Wikimedia Foundations & communities beyond being a catchy bullet point on his resume. -- llywrch (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might we have articles of fact rather than iterated editorial commentary? "one of the many WMF employees to have left during Tretikov's tenure." in the primary photo caption is an indication thereof, along with too much of this editorial artlessly masquerading as "News and Notes." ("a series of employee departures", "departure was one of the flashpoints for other employees", " employee exits from the WMF continue", "Due to the exodus of employees, ", etc. show the preternatural obsession with HR at the WMF). Collect (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]