User:Carrite/Sicore interview 141009
Interview with new Wikimedia Foundation VP of Engineering Damon Sicore ("gnubeard"), via IRC on October 9, 2014. Edited and posted to Wikipediocracy by WPO user "Thracia" on October 10.
Editorial note by Thracia: "As usual, a lot of the content is noises off from unfunny idiots, but I've tried to sift out a few interesting answers (apologies if I've sifted badly)."
Q (from ori): Now that you've had a chance to get acquainted with the Foundation, what problems seem most urgent to you, and do you have any early thoughts about how you're planning to tackle them?
A: The most urgent issue seems to be software quality and shipping what we say we are going to ship, on time. However, this urgency is compounded by the fact that we must be able to compete in mobile.
Also, our talent base here is fantastic. However, the question I'm left asking: How are we going to build the sum of all knowledge with only seven engineers (not an actual number, but not off by an order, fer sure)? Seven mobile engineers? Not enough. it took me 150 engineers to build Firefox for Android. And that was moving as fast as humanly possible.
I see us having to scale to a size that enables us to compete with the engineering shops that are trying to kill us. That means we need to double down on recruiting top talent, and steal the engineers from the sources they use... because... well... they are REALLY GOOD.
Q (from greg-g): Who's trying to kill us?
A: Any company that wants to sell knowledge. For example, I find it ironic that the WMF office is over Kaplan. I believe Kaplan is trying to kill us. They want to take over the schools because they sell educational content. and we are their biggest threat.
We will be slowly absorbed behind other systems that present our information unless we build products that our users want to use.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Q: (from harej): What is the difference between Engineering and Product, now that they are two separate departments? It sounds like "Engineering" is focusing on software stuff, but I thought that would be Product, since our main product is MediaWiki?
A: Product's job is to guarantee we are building the right products. Guarantee means a lot of things, but it means, specifically that they must tell us when we are winning and why. Product should be in the seat next to engineers.
And, really, while there is a org split between the two, they should be interacting constantly. Engineering will be focused on ops, processes, testing, quality.
But, again, the biggest challenge will be how do we innovate in mobile. We have to be where our users are, and we don't have a place for our mobile users to go yet. and we can't get to them.
I want everyone to keep this in mind: If we don't move faster and better than google, apple, and microsoft (and their ilk and kin), they will consume us and we will go away. It's that simple. So, that means our engineering processes must be as efficient as possible. We must measure and move with intent. Measuring means efficacy of product changes as well as performance, perceived efficiency, and security.
Right now, we're number one because the big players in the space (all the ones I mentioned) still respect us. They believe in us. But, if we ship shitty software, that won't last very long, or if we *don't change* we will last an even shorter time.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Q (from Seth_Finkelstein): Have you read the site wikipediocracy.com? If so, what do you think of it? In general, how do you plan to deal with the sometimes very harsh criticism leveled at WMF actions?
[Aside from jorm: "they're a bunch of howling, rage-faced, conspiracy theorists that are difficult to take seriously?"]
A: I've read wikipediocracy.com. Most of it. I can't imagine an executive joining WMF without reading it. I actually appreciate the fact that it exists.
On Wikipediocracy: and, well, this may hurt a little, but the writing there is amateur and abrasive. Not something that I would enjoy reading. And also, the arguments are so specific to WMF and attacking individuals that I don't think it will be relevant long term.
I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be relative, but the quality of the posts is similar to other sites that attempt to do what they do. Many have come and gone on my watch at Mozilla. Nothing ever comes of them if you build the right product and keep your promises.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Q (from pajz): Many of the goals you mention are, I feel, "relative" in the sense that you are drawing up a comparison with (other) big players on the internet. However, a Wikipedia article is written by volunteer authors — it is not the result of an algorithm. How do you want to make sure that your engineerings team's strive for more efficiency and prompter implementation will not alienate people contributing content who are often rather skeptical of significant changes to the site?
A: you are right to ask that, because I am drawing on comparisons with other big corporate projects... What I want to see is a better connection between those in WMF who are making product changes (which can be anyone, really) and see how they are prioritizing. If those prioritizations do not include our constituents, then I know that we may be going in the wrong direction. almost certainly. [...]
What if no mobile app store anywhere contained any application to see Wikipedia? Make no mistake: They are figuring out how to do that. I've been in the conversations! An example: The day Steve Jobs died I was in a meeting with Andy Rubin, yes Andy Rubin, and he rejected allowing Firefox as a browser... we had to fight!!! That is our threat.
So, on hiring, I don't see how we are going to build the sum of all knowledge with what we have now. [...] I don't think it's just about writing an encyclopedia. It's about making sure somone can READ and EDIT the encyclopedia.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Q (from aschmidt): Over the past hour i have read a lot of kidding by the way, i have read a lot about Mozilla as it was, but nothing has really touched the questions that matter to the community. Sorry to say that. Not even the serious question asked by pajz has been addressed adequately. We have read and edited wikipedia since 2001. This hour was about what the WMF intends to change or not, and I'm afraid we have not heard anything consistent an [sic]
A: aschmidt seemed to think I was kidding. I'm serious about everything I said. In no way am I kidding.
And, to repeat what I plan to change: Software Quality, shipping what we say we are going to ship.
if we can't adapt to the market environment fast enough, we won't have users who are interested in us. [...] sure, we've been around for a while. But make no mistake, software rots. How many desktop apps do you use that are ten or more years old?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Q (from hasher): By mean of changing Software Quality, do you have any idea to share already? I am wondering how we could better work with our users.
A: some projects in WMF don't have a no regression policy, for example. Some projects have little to no testing.
Q (from ottomata, Qcoder00): No regression policy? and thus no metrics?
A: Right. If it isn't measured, it doesn't exist. (don't take that all the way... but you get what I mean).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Q (from marxarelli): How do you plan to keep our development goals congruent with our stated product goals and, perhaps more importantly, our product goals congruent with what our community wants?
A: Dev goals congruent with product is easy. That just means we talk. That I can do.
As for the community goals, I need to understand our touchpoints with the community now. When I ask these questions here, I don't get the answers I'm looking for.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And to close, a bit of raw conversation involving Damon, Erik, Jorm and onlookers (slightly edited/reordered for noise/sense, my emphases) —Thracia
<plipp> Did my question about formal usability [testing] get answered at the Engineering office hour?
<gnubeard> Nope.
<Eloquence> more of a product question really, so I can take that one
<plipp> I saw in the logs that someone says the Foundation contracts usability testing with an outside agency, but I wonder whether they use real editors
<Eloquence> We've done limited user testing for years, and the first formal user studies in labs many years ago. but we started building a proper in-house UX research team a few months ago and are now doing more and more testing directly in partnership with product teams on an ongoing basis
<jorm> We have several types of usability tests. some use 3rd parties. we have a stack of tests and reports that were done at wikimania with "real editors". though, when testing usability, that doesn't mean much. either the software is usable or it is not. if it is only "usable" to a select group of people - people who are trained in it, perhaps - then it is not "usable" software. it's esoteric.
<matanya> No one was born with the knowledge to edit a wiki jorm
<plipp> jorm: Usability isn't a binary thing. You can measure it as a continuum, for example as a floating point speedup factor
<plipp> It seems to me that most of the problems with VE and Media Viewer would likely have been caught with http://www.usabilityfirst.com/usability ... y-testing/ style tests using actual editors. instead of maybe just some third party agency grabbing people off the street and pretending they are equivalent to experienced editors
<Eloquence> plipp, testing with different personas consistently helps, yes.
<gnubeard> I want to add a few points, too. Usability testing is super important. However, I think that getting the usability right before you build the product is a better way to do it. For example, with FirefoxOS, we sent an ARMY of people to the regions where we *suspected* we would launch, years in advance, in order to do testing on the ground *first*... Get the users requirements *first* from them... *in person* by going house to [house]
<Eloquence> gnubeard, really interested in learning more about how you scaled that stuff @ moz
<gnubeard> Before we designed the phone, we extracted the intentions and activities out of the community first.
<Eloquence> I've had some bad experiences w/ premature field research but agree it could be super valuable if done right
<gnubeard> Eloquence: yep. it's hard. And the usability aspects I'm talking about... aren't down to pixel perfect.. you can't do that upfront. pixel perfect takes rigor. crazy rigor. And the iPhone has subpixels. So, it's twice as hard.
<plipp> I'm wondering if anyone can think about problems with VE that wouldn't have been caught with formal usability tests using authentic experienced editors
<Eloquence> heh :) yes, plenty
<gnubeard> plipp: usability errors aren't the problem with VE. It's fatally flawed as it is now. I still think it's the right product, just not even to the point where we're really talking about usablility problems. These are tablestakes problems (i.e., load time).
<matanya> load days you mean
<Eloquence> plipp, a problem with VE is that it has to deal with millions of articles and edge cases. usability testing works typically with smaller samples of users, so you'll only discover some edge cases
<gnubeard> Eloquence: That's exactly right. My experience with the Gecko layout engine, and building that team, the edge cases are mind blowing. 70 languages, hundreds of styles and elements, all different on all browsers, now make it all come together and look the same everywhere??! really really hard. Big big brains have to tackle that problem. way bigger than mine. (think http://dbaron.org/ )
<plipp> Well, I mean for example things like the pawn symbol insertions and not being able to handle various templates. Those are things that authentic experienced editors would see but UsabilityRUs testers off the street would never catch on to. if you are releasing a new smartphone app, it makes sense to do usability testing with people off the street <gnubeard> are we releasing a new smartfone app? :)
<plipp> no, no, just an example of when an outside agency would make sense. an outside agency would still make sense if they have access to authentic experienced editors, but as I understand those companies they pride themselves on the naivety of their testers
<gnubeard> Why aren't we?
<plipp> beats me, but it's my suggestion and I'm sticking to it :)
<gnubeard> Even if it means our death?
<plipp> I think it would much more likely lead to editor community harmony! The only thing dying would be the hordes of angry editors with torches and pitchforks. And they wouldn't die, they would transform into enthusiastic supporters.
<Eloquence> plipp, fortunately we have plenty of willing beta testers, too, who do lots of reporting of edge cases. but we stretch people's patience when we push things out too quickly, as we did with VE. we need to take our time to get the complex projects (VE/Flow) right. that's why I'm OK slowing down the deployment targets on these.
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ E N D ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡
A reply on WPO by Andreas Kolbe/HRIP7/Jayen466[edit]
Well, here Damon may have a point. It's very difficult to put across criticism of the type we're trying to formulate here without coming across to the casual passer-by as angry, obsessed, nit-picking cranks. (Especially if there is a whiff of truth to that characterisation, from a complete outsider's perspective.) And I think he's right that this is a problem many criticism blogs struggle with, and that keeps them marginalised. Too much inside baseball.
And sometimes, even in criticising Wikipedia, a good few people here think like Wikipedians (and that is, well, because a fair number are, or have been, Wikipedians), yelling for example about unfairly applied Wikipedia rules that mean diddly-squat to anyone who has never looked behind the scenes of Wikipedia, or about a particular editor whose nefariousness has really rubbed them the wrong way, but whom the rest of humanity really couldn't care less about. While those grievances may be fully justified, presenting them in a way that it becomes something the ordinary person in the street will care about is often impossible and always hard. It really means divesting oneself from any vestiges of the Wikipedia mindset, and looking at the big picture, with outsider's eyes. If it's all the same to the casual Wikipedia reader, it doesn't matter.
Some interesting news has come out of the past few days' discussions.
1. WMF consider themselves a technology and grantmaking operation (okay, this was clearly known to many people before, but I hadn't seen it stated as definitely as Erik Möller stated it the other day). I wonder how clear it is to the public.
2. Their VP of Engineering feels they don't have enough staff – and not enough top talent. No argument from this site on the latter assertion at least; as for the former one, one might agree with it if these hordes of talented engineers were to produce at some point in the future something that actually is awesome, to use that beloved word. So expect the donations drive to continue, and several hundred software engineers to be added to the employee roster if there is enough money to pay for them.
3. If anyone still doubted it, it is now more clear than ever from Damon's comments that the WMF fears that their page views will be stolen by re-users of their content who produce a more visually appealing and up-to-date reader interface. (Jan-Bart's denial can be written off as bullshit.) This is a battle in which the WMF really are fighting for themselves and their own salaries, because large portions of the unpaid volunteer community don't actually care whether readers read their content on wikipedia.org or elsewhere. They believe and signed up to the idea that reuse by others – commercial or non-commercial – is not just fine, but actually what the whole project is about.
A note on the quotation of my statement[edit]
Thanks for summarising the IRC office hour and for re-posting the text here. The new page has been mentioned on German Wikipedia.
I just would like to add that my statement before I left the channel was not cited in the logfile in full. I do not know whether my Adium truncated the line, so I would like to quote it in full according to my log. It read:
Over the past hour I have read a lot of kidding by the way, I have read a lot about Mozilla as it was, but nothing has really touched the questions that matter to the community. Sorry to say that. Not even the serious question asked by pajz has been addressed adequately. We have read and edited wikipedia since 2001. This hour was about what the WMF intends to change or not, and I'm afraid we have not heard anything consistent and new in this respect. Good night to you all.
Damon did not respond to that. Indeed, unfortunately he left the channel even without saying goodbye properly. However, Damon referred to an earlier remark of mine. I then elaborated on my impression of the IRC hour and left the channel because it was 11 p.m. local time. The term 'kidding' referred to the somewhat chaotic course of the hour which was rather hard to follow for non-native English speakers, as Ziko also had pointed out at some point. I did not mean to say that Damon was kidding.
I think the major point of controversy between the WMF and the community nowadays is that at least the German editors usually do not contribute to Wikipedia because it is a 'top-5 website'. We are not at all interested in that. We are only interested in quality, not something like the Alexa or the Google rank of the website. It is a feature of nonprofit organisations that such things do not matter. As long as the WMF does not understand this we won't get along. —Aschmidt 11:55 am, 10/10/14 (UTC−7) Moved here from talk. Edited for style by T.D.