WebProNews

Tag: Sue Gardner

  • Lila Tretikov Replaces Sue Gardner As Executive Director Of Wikimedia Foundation

    Lila Tretikov Replaces Sue Gardner As Executive Director Of Wikimedia Foundation

    It’s been over thirteen months since Sue Gardner announced that she’d step down as the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit behind Wikipedia. The foundation has finally announced her replacement.

    Lila Tretikov will be taking on the role.

    Tretikov, originally from Moscow, moved to New York after the collapse of the Soviet Union, then went to the University of California, Berkley, to major in computer science and art. There, she did research work in machine learning.

    She has worked for tech companies in the Bay Area for the past fifteen years, mostly in open source. This began with a stint at Sun Microsystems before she founded GrokDigital, and spent three years as senior director of development at Telespree. Most recently, she spent 8 years at SugarCRM, where she was in charge of internal IT, marketing, customer support and professional services, engineering, and product development. She’s also an advisor to the board of Zamurai Corporation.

    Two years ago, she won a bronze for Female Executive of the Year – Business Services – 11 to 2,500 Empnloyees – Computer Hardware & Software at the Stevie Awards.

    Tretikov holds at least seven patents in intelligent data mapping and dynamic language applications.

    Here’s an interview she did with Forbes a few years ago:

    “The Executive Director Transition Team, chaired by me, has unanimously recommended Lila to the Board to be our next ED, and the Board has unanimously approved the recommendation,” writes Jan-Bart de Vreede in the announcement. “We believe she will be an excellent leader in the Wikimedia movement. She strikes us all as smart, brave and unpretentious, and we believe she has the skills the Foundation needs.”

    She’ll officially take over on June 1st. In June, Gardner will serve as a special advisor to both Tretikov and de Vreede.

    “I want to close this post with a heartfelt and deeply appreciative thanks to Sue Gardner, who has been the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation for the past seven years,” de Vreede writes. “Sue’s leadership has built the Foundation into an effective, well-funded and well-managed organisation with integrity and a clear sense of purpose, and her steady and committed presence throughout the search process was integral in helping us come to this excellent result. We will be forever grateful for her leadership and vision, and I hope we can continue to rely on her support in the months and years ahead.”

    When Gardner announced her departure, she said she was “uncomfortable” with where the internet was heading.

    She said at the time, “I feel that although we’re in good shape, with a promising future, the same is not true for the internet itself…Increasingly, I’m finding myself uncomfortable about how the internet’s developing, who’s influencing its development, and who is not.”

    She pointed to bills like SOPA/PIPA and CISPA, and said, “Wikipedia has experienced censorship at the hands of industry groups and governments, and we are –increasingly, I think– seeing important decisions made by unaccountable, non-transparent corporate players, a shift from the open web to mobile walled gardens, and a shift from the production-based internet to one that’s consumption-based. There are many organizations and individuals advocating for the public interest online — what’s good for ordinary people — but other interests are more numerous and powerful than they are. I want that to change. And that’s what I want to do next.”

    Since then, Gardner and Wikimedia have had to deal with questionable practices from within the organization itself. After fighting companies accepting payment for influencing Wikipedia content, a respected Wikmedia employee was busted and fired for making paid edits.

    It will be interesting to see how the organization develops under Tretikov’s watch. Right now, she’s still getting acquainted with the organization.

    As you might imagine, managing a foundation that has such a profound influence on information consumption is no easy feat. A few years ago, we had a conversation with Gardner about this, which you can read here.

    Tretikov will no doubt have her work cut out for her.

    Images via Wikimedia, Wikimedia Commons

  • Wikipedia Shuts Down Hundreds Of Accounts For Paid Edits

    Sue Gardner, the outgoing executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, announced today that over 250 Wikipedia accounts have been blocked or banned as editors investigate accusations of people being paid to edit and manage pages.

    “The Wikimedia Foundation takes this issue seriously and has been following it closely,” writes Gardner. “With a half a billion readers, Wikipedia is an important informational resource for people all over the world. Our readers know Wikipedia’s not perfect, but they also know that it has their best interests at heart, and is never trying to sell them a product or propagandize them in any way. Our goal is to provide neutral, reliable information for our readers, and anything that threatens that is a serious problem. We are actively examining this situation and exploring our options.”

    Gardner said that she and the editors who are investigating have expressed “shock and dismay.”

    Not many would be “shocked” that people are trying to game the system. Wikipedia is one of the biggest and most visible sites on the Internet, and is the primary gateway to information about companies for many people. It’s also tightly integrated into Google’s Knowledge Graph and Apple’s Siri. It should be no surprise that people would try their best to make themselves look better.

    But what is more shocking is that there could be some in the Wikipedia universe with a great deal of power over content that are part of this.

    Gardner references an article from the Daily Dot from earlier this month about a Wikipedia editor uncovering what the publication called ” the largest sockpuppet network in Wikipedia history”. This was kicked off when the editor noticed something fishy about citations on the page for a company called CyberSafe and the appeals that came in during the deletion process, which seemed to be coming from the same person through different accounts.

    The article discusses a service called WikPR, which promises to manage its clients’ Wikipedia presences. WikiPR says on its Services page:

    “Trying to get on Wikipedia for the first time? Or has Wikipedia created a page that you want edited? We can help. Our staff of 45 Wikipedia editors and admins helps you build a page that stands up to the scrutiny of Wikipedia’s community rules and guidelines. We respect the community and its rules against promoting and advertising. Don’t leave your Wikipedia page up to chance. Don’t get caught in a PR debacle by editing your own page. Ensure your Wikipedia page is 100% accurate with our Page Creation & Editing service.”

    “Let’s face it: You can’t monitor every edit made to your Wikipedia page. That’s why we created Page Management service. We’ve built technology to manage your page 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Plus, you’ll have a dedicated Wikipedia project manager that understands your brand as well as you do. That means you need not worry about anyone tarnishing your image – be it personal, political, or corporate.”

    WikiPR also tells prospective clients, “Let the largest Wikipedia research firm help you claim your top spot in Google search results.”

    As The Daily Dot’s Simon Owens wrote, “Perhaps the most shocking claim on the Wiki-PR is that the firm employs admins. Wikipedia’s privileged few, admins possess special rights and powers they use to keep other editors in line. They can restrict editing access to a page (often when a page is being vandalized or is extremely controversial), ban users, and delete pages. Wikipedia admins (who, like almost other Wikipedia user, are volunteers) are often thought of as the site’s sacred guardians, committed to neutrality and fairness, able to wade into the most controversial and divisive entries and deliver impartial judgement.”

    “If Wiki-PR’s claims are true, that means there may be ‘sleeper agents’ among Wikipedia’s most powerful users, a revelation that would likely send chills down the spine of any devoted Wikipedian,” Owens added.

    Apparently this is indeed the case in Gardner’s case.

    “Editing-for-pay has been a divisive topic inside Wikipedia for many years, particularly when the edits to articles are promotional in nature,” she writes. “Unlike a university professor editing Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise, paid editing for promotional purposes, or paid advocacy editing as we call it, is extremely problematic. We consider it a ‘black hat’ practice. Paid advocacy editing violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people.”

    “What is clear to everyone is that all material on Wikipedia needs to adhere to Wikipedia’s editorial policies, including those on neutrality and verifiability,” Gardner adds. “It is also clear that companies that engage in unethical practices on Wikipedia risk seriously damaging their own reputations. In general, companies engaging in self-promotional activities on Wikipedia have come under heavy criticism from the press and the general public, with their actions widely viewed as inconsistent with Wikipedia’s educational mission.”

    She says the foundation is continuing the investigation, assessing its options, and will have more to say about the situation in the coming weeks.

    Earlier this year, Gardner announced that she would depart the Wikimedia Foundation. At the time, she said she was “uncomfortable” with where the Internet is heading. I’m guessing these events have done little to change her mind about that.

    Image: Sue Gardner (Victoria Will for the Wikimedia Foundation)

  • Wikipedia and Other Wikimedia Sites See 500M+ Uniques a Month

    Wikimedia sites, which include Wikipedia, Wikionary, Wikibooks, Wikimedia Commons, Wikiquote, and nearly a dozen more, now see over 500 million unique visitors a month.

    The previous high was set in May of 2012, when Wikimedia Foundation sites saw 492 million uniques. In March, the family of sites saw an astounding 517 million unique vistors. The data comes courtesy of the latest comScore Media Matrix.

    “In the Wikimedia movement, we have a vision statement that inspires many contributions to our endeavor: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That’s our commitment,” says Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner.

    “The idea of enabling every single human being to freely share in the sum of all knowledge is still as audacious as ever – but it’s also starting to look like an achievable goal, if we come together to make it happen.”

    The increase in uniques has also had an impact on how long readers stay and how much content they consume. Gardner says that people are staying longer and reading more.

    “Over the past 12 months, Wikipedia monthly page requests increased from 17.1 billion to 21.3 billion, with the mobile share increasing to roughly 15 percent of the total, or more than 3 billion monthly views. We’re also gratified to see growth in significant target areas: in India, traffic as a percentage of our worldwide total increased from 4.0 percent to 4.8 percent; in Brazil it increased from 3.6 percent to 5.9 percent.”

    Speaking of Sue Gardner – she’s not long for the position of Wikimedia director. A couple of weeks ago, she announced that she would be stepping down from the job – not right away, as she expects to take 6 months or so to find a replacement.

  • Sue Gardner To Depart Wikimedia Foundation, ‘Uncomfortable’ With Where Internet Is Heading

    Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that runs Wikipedia) announced today that she is stepping away from her position. She’s not leaving right way. She expects it to take at least six months to find her replacement, and she will remain in her position in the meantime.

    She’s been with the foundation since it was small, and has helped lead it to the Internet force it has become. But why is she leaving? She doesn’t like where the Internet is headed. Gardner, who says the decision wasn’t easy, says it comes down to two things.

    “First, the movement and the Wikimedia Foundation are in a strong place now,” she says in her announcement. “When I joined, the Foundation was tiny and not yet able to reliably support the projects. Today we’re healthy, thriving, and a competent partner to the global network of Wikimedia volunteers. If that wasn’t the case, I wouldn’t feel okay to leave, and in that sense, my leaving is very much a vote of confidence in our Board and executive team and staff. I know they will ably steer the Foundation through the years ahead, and I’m confident the Board will appoint a strong successor to me.”

    “I feel that although we’re in good shape, with a promising future, the same is not true for the internet itself. (This is thing number two.) Increasingly, I’m finding myself uncomfortable about how the internet’s developing, who’s influencing its development, and who is not,” she adds. “Last year we at Wikimedia raised an alarm about SOPA/PIPA, and now CISPA is back. Wikipedia has experienced censorship at the hands of industry groups and governments, and we are –increasingly, I think– seeing important decisions made by unaccountable, non-transparent corporate players, a shift from the open web to mobile walled gardens, and a shift from the production-based internet to one that’s consumption-based. There are many organizations and individuals advocating for the public interest online — what’s good for ordinary people — but other interests are more numerous and powerful than they are. I want that to change. And that’s what I want to do next.”

    More on recent developments with CISPA here.

    Gardner says she intends to do something else aligned with the values of Wikimedia, which might surface in the form of a book, a non-profit, or work in partnership with something that already exists.

    “Either way, I strongly believe this is what I need to do,” she says. “I feel an increasing sense of urgency about this. That said, I also feel a strong sense of responsibility (and love!) for the Wikimedia movement, and so I’ve agreed with the Board that I’ll stay on as Executive Director until we have my successor in place. That’ll take some time — likely, at least six months.”

    In the meantime, she says, nothing will change.

    The Board has appointed a transition team, which will be meeting over the coming weeks, with a face-to-face meeting scheduled for mid-April.

    Here’s an interview we did with Gardner back in 2009 about keeping Wikipedia relevant.