Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 02/17/11 10:16 AM, Christine Moellenberndt wrote: On 2/17/11 8:29 AM, whothis wrote: If someone asks a question in a conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually and expect that to satisfy the rest of the audience. Actually, I'd like to beg to differ here. I have been to conferences where questions have been asked publicly to a panel. If the question seems too off topic for the general audience, or too specific for the general audience, the panel member being questioned will generally defer to answering the question after the main panel discussion is over. Then the two get together and talk it out off-panel if you will. At least in my discipline, I've not seen anyone get upset over it (I'm usually grateful that it happened :) And oftentimes the asker is pleased as well because it gives more time to get their question answered fully). If it was a question I was also interested in, I'll go and talk to the panelist/question asker myself as well. Or, if the audience disagrees, someone else will chime up Actually I'd like to know that too, or That's a valid question that maybe should be answered here. And it goes into that forum. But usually, it stays off-panel. I agree with whois on this point. My first impression was that it was a thoroughly uninteresting question from government another trivial bureaucratic requirement. I relished the idea that this would be an easy thread to delete. The community on this list never takes kindly to being peremptorily told by one individual that an answer to a question asked on this list doesn't belong here. Other community members did effectively say Actually I'd like to know that too. Trying to rationalize why it was taken off list only made matters worse. Absent an affirmative reason for keeping something like this off list there is a lot less heat generated by a direct answer that is as full as you can make it, or simply promising to look into the question. Most who then respond at all may even thank you as they get into a brief discussion of the substance. When they do that it is their discussion, and no longer your responsibility. Valid criticism restricts itself to the points at hand. It is done with a view to preventing the perceived problem from recurring should the occasion arise. It is not about some generalization about the way someone does her job when no facts are on the table about anything but one incident. Nor is it helpful if someone else perceives the discussion as extending beyond the bounds of valid criticism. Alluding to multiple unspecified instances of excessive criticism only turns up the heat without turning on the lights; it sounds more like the shrewish wife who can't let go of the one time a month ago when her lazy husband forgot to do the dishes. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 02/16/11 9:14 PM, James Alexander wrote: So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, regardless of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown out the window. This thread is about when it happens to staff but the same exact thing happens to other community members speak up. We see it with Arbcom members or Stewards, Article writers and anti-vandal fighters. So many people who love the community and truly want what is best for it are met only with skepticism, the assumption of bad faith and the decision that they only way to question is to do so harshly and without mercy. Is that really what we our community wants or needs? It's not just the experienced classes that get harshly criticized. The stunned newbies have no idea what's happening to them. While the words that are used espouse the rightful desire (that I think every one of us wants) for transparency, discussion and community input (and decisions) throughout the foundation and the projects I worry that the result we are getting from this style of attack is exactly the opposite. We are breeding a culture where maybe the staff member doesn't stop posting here (or the Arbcom member stop posting decisions or the stewards enforcing them) but where everyone is forced to sit and think and plan the best way to break the news writing and rewriting announcements to try and spin it how the rest of the community will want to hear it (or worse how particular people they know will be vocal want to hear it). In the end they still post but they do so with far less transparency, far less discussion and take far longer . The more you try to spin the more you sound like government. I've always found that one of the best ways for me to work is to throw my ideas in to the mix and debate it out with everyone. I end up with a better understanding of what all the variables and issues are and in the end I feel we come up with a better conclusion. The other side, asking everyone to come up with their own idea means they come back in the end having 'decided' on the best course of action. Getting them to deviate from that action is far harder now because they've hashed it all out on their own, they're much more sure and in the end I don't think we get the best conclusion because we don't get to mesh everyone's nearly as well. Assuming good faith includes respecting the other guy's right to be in error. The most innovative ideas can appear very foolish when first presented. Assuming good faith also involves looking at an idea on its own merits. That you may have been involved in a gang-up on the speaker two years ago doesn't matter. Maybe this is how I work but I feel like we want a culture where it is perfectly acceptable for someone to respond without all the data, for them to make mistakes and get corrected and have that debate and those arguments. I think we come out all the better for it. But to do that we have to be able to do it in a collegial (sp?) way. I know I want that in a work environment and whether I'm getting paid or not I certainly see the projects as a work environment for us all. Sure. An important Wikipedia maxim is to leave something for others to do. This doesn't mean that we willfully omit material, but that we acknowledge that our personal resources are limited, and others may be more suited to filling in the blanks. Ec PS: Collegial is spelled correctly, but earlier in the comments tenants should really be tenets. :-) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 02/16/11 10:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote: If criticism is unduly harsh in your opinion, you should say so to the people doing the criticizing as it happens (privately or publicly). Nobody's perfect; sometimes people are too harsh. And sometimes text is just mis-read or mis-phrased. That's the nature of text-based communication, or any communication, really. Any two of us can use the same word differently. It's the responsibility of a good-faith reader to assume the more benign of two possibilities. We can't afford to be too easily offended by an unfortunate choice of words. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 02/17/11 10:49 AM, whothis wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Christine Moellenberndt wrote: Actually, we already do this. I make a point of visiting AN, AN/I, RfA, Village pump, and at least glance at the conversations on 11 mailing lists several times throughout my day (or tease out certain threads if I can't read everything at once). I try to hit the equivalents on the other projects as well on a regular basis. All that seems rather useless for the most part, I doubt anything from an RfA or the AN/I has been brought up this list. Getting an understanding of the community from such pages is like understanding an elephant by looking up its butt. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: One suggestion I made was that, since communication between office and community is so critical, it might be worth the foundation employing one person at the office purely for community/office liaison (via this list, on Meta, etc). In other words their role is to be at the office and responsive to the community on lists and wikis, ensure community questions and concerns are addressed or not lost, where other staff may not be able to do so as fully as some would wish. It'd cost, but it may well be worth it. Worthwhile? Or wasteful? FT2 Yes, worthwhile, although this list would be only a minor part of such monitoring. An experienced Wikipedian needs to monitor the mailing lists, Village Pump, requests for arbitration, and the administrative noticeboards regularly and prepare a brief summary for staff daily. Emphasis would be on issues which have potential to or already affect public relations or Foundation resources. Fred And it's worth pointing out the obvious -- the reason there are so many places is because it's nearly impossible to keep up with *everything* going on in the communit(ies)* all the time. Even a subset of that discussion can be too much for those of us trying to get other things done as well; most of the subscribees of the list probably skim it at least some of the time. And the vast majority of our community is not even on Foundation-l but a pretty large percentage (I'd guess) of those people who interested in governance, foundation and meta-issues probably are subscribed, which is just one of the reasons why it's worth trying to make it a useful forum -- a perennial hope and dream! collegially, Phoebe * projects in 270 languages, chapters, wmf, etc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.comwrote: And it's worth pointing out the obvious -- the reason there are so many places is because it's nearly impossible to keep up with *everything* going on in the communit(ies)* all the time. Even a subset of that discussion can be too much for those of us trying to get other things done as well; most of the subscribees of the list probably skim it at least some of the time. And the vast majority of our community is not even on Foundation-l but a pretty large percentage (I'd guess) of those people who interested in governance, foundation and meta-issues probably are subscribed, which is just one of the reasons why it's worth trying to make it a useful forum -- a perennial hope and dream! I'd just like to add my perspective as a relatively new staffer at WMF. People in the office really do read Foundation-l and all the other movement lists. They are very much influenced by them and take them very seriously. A couple of times, someone on this list has said that WMF staff call Foundation-l Troll-l. I've never heard anyone refer to it that way. I think that perception might be leading the most concerned Wikimedians to leave this list. That would be a bad thing. Please stay! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 2/18/2011 12:38 PM, Zack Exley wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.comwrote: And it's worth pointing out the obvious -- the reason there are so many places is because it's nearly impossible to keep up with *everything* going on in the communit(ies)* all the time. Even a subset of that discussion can be too much for those of us trying to get other things done as well; most of the subscribees of the list probably skim it at least some of the time. And the vast majority of our community is not even on Foundation-l but a pretty large percentage (I'd guess) of those people who interested in governance, foundation and meta-issues probably are subscribed, which is just one of the reasons why it's worth trying to make it a useful forum -- a perennial hope and dream! I'd just like to add my perspective as a relatively new staffer at WMF. People in the office really do read Foundation-l and all the other movement lists. They are very much influenced by them and take them very seriously. A couple of times, someone on this list has said that WMF staff call Foundation-l Troll-l. I've never heard anyone refer to it that way. In my experience, it's actually mostly community members frustrated with the quality of discussions who call it that. The staff avoid that kind of tone, understandably, as it might seem unprofessional. Personally, I prefer not to suggest that anyone is a troll, except for Domas (he likes it). --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 2/18/2011 12:38 PM, Zack Exley wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.comwrote: And it's worth pointing out the obvious -- the reason there are so many places is because it's nearly impossible to keep up with *everything* going on in the communit(ies)* all the time. Even a subset of that discussion can be too much for those of us trying to get other things done as well; most of the subscribees of the list probably skim it at least some of the time. And the vast majority of our community is not even on Foundation-l but a pretty large percentage (I'd guess) of those people who interested in governance, foundation and meta-issues probably are subscribed, which is just one of the reasons why it's worth trying to make it a useful forum -- a perennial hope and dream! I'd just like to add my perspective as a relatively new staffer at WMF. People in the office really do read Foundation-l and all the other movement lists. They are very much influenced by them and take them very seriously. A couple of times, someone on this list has said that WMF staff call Foundation-l Troll-l. I've never heard anyone refer to it that way. on 2/18/11 3:47 PM, Michael Snow at wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: In my experience, it's actually mostly community members frustrated with the quality of discussions who call it that. The staff avoid that kind of tone, understandably, as it might seem unprofessional. Personally, I prefer not to suggest that anyone is a troll, except for Domas (he likes it). Yes. Often a person with a need to control a conversation or discussion will resort to that name-calling tactic. They don't like the POV the messenger is bringing so they try to discredit them. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This is definitely not just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it like that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue... It is also something that I think has roots in all of the active aspects of the community. James, this was a good post. We do need a more active focus on kindness, effective skepticism, and constructive criticism. And I agree that the problem being expressed here (not MZM's comment about transparency, which is valid and should be considered separately) -- the universal trouble with people attacking one another and making public spaces feel unsafe -- affects many parts of the community. The fact that we associate active Wikipedia work on en:wp with AN/I is indicative of the trend. That noticeboard is hardly relevant to the work of most editors, lingering on conflicts of various sorts. So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, regardless of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown out the window. This is where not having safe spaces to discuss what's going on limits transparency... Maybe this is how I work but I feel like we want a culture where it is perfectly acceptable for someone to respond without all the data, for them to make mistakes and get corrected and have that debate and those arguments. So do I. -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This is definitely not just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it like that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue... It is also something that I think has roots in all of the active aspects of the community. on 2/18/11 8:08 PM, Samuel Klein at meta...@gmail.com wrote: James, this was a good post. We do need a more active focus on kindness, effective skepticism, and constructive criticism. And I agree that the problem being expressed here (not MZM's comment about transparency, which is valid and should be considered separately) -- the universal trouble with people attacking one another and making public spaces feel unsafe -- affects many parts of the community. The fact that we associate active Wikipedia work on en:wp with AN/I is indicative of the trend. That noticeboard is hardly relevant to the work of most editors, lingering on conflicts of various sorts. So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, regardless of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown out the window. This is where not having safe spaces to discuss what's going on limits transparency... Maybe this is how I work but I feel like we want a culture where it is perfectly acceptable for someone to respond without all the data, for them to make mistakes and get corrected and have that debate and those arguments. So do I. To James: This is one of the most accurate, and articulate, descriptions of the present enWikipedia culture that I have read. Thank you. But, so far, any suggestions for change has been met with apathy or, those advocating change being considered malcontents and troublemakers. Yes, I have been accused of trolling:-). I have been trying to call attention to this problem of a dysfunctional culture in the Project for 4 years now. However, the initiative for change, and the know-how to create it, doesn't appear to exist at the highest levels of the Project. Pity. To Samuel: And, so do I. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
Of note, arguments against the spirit of the civility policy badly miss the point Marc and others are making. The expectation for collegial conduct between editors (by whatever name) is not a means of repression as some cast it. Its a means to ensure those who will leave if bitten, don't get bitten. It's a necessary culture for long term project growth and survival. People who care about the project should strive for more respect for its spirit, and to live within that. Not less. To underline that, I've been an editor for close to 7 years, dealt with horrible POV warriors (later Arbcom banned, often after months or a yar of engagement on talk pages), dealt with abusive admins. I can speak to the need for incivility. It's vanishingly rare. I can think of 2 occasions by email, one on a web site off-wiki, and none on-wiki, that I've dropped civility in a Wikimedia-related context, and each of those was due to a specific situation involved (where little else would have effect), and after consultation with other experienced users. It may be some people's habit, but so is original research and making claims without evidence, and we don't think twice about expecting people to restrain those habits when they edit. In brief, we don't (as a community) take manners to others seriously enough. That starts at the top and works down (anything else would be hypocrisy). If admins are expected one day to toe the line on the spirit of being supportive, helpful, courteous-if-firm, to everyone, then that would percolate to new admins and the community as a whole. Doing so does not affect people's effectiveness or ability to control problems as admins. Those who cannot may simply disqualify themselves as admins until they learn, much as those who cannot avoid original research would disqualify themselves for various positions of trust and reputation. Good conduct is not alien or hard. Expecting it is not civility police, it's a basic need of a community this size seeking to engage people who are not hardened veterans of internet wars. It's a habit. It can be learned, and it can be expected, and it can happen here as well. You'd be surprised how fast people learn when it's needed to do what they want. FT2 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This is definitely not just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it like that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue... It is also something that I think has roots in all of the active aspects of the community. on 2/18/11 8:08 PM, Samuel Klein at meta...@gmail.com wrote: James, this was a good post. We do need a more active focus on kindness, effective skepticism, and constructive criticism. And I agree that the problem being expressed here (not MZM's comment about transparency, which is valid and should be considered separately) -- the universal trouble with people attacking one another and making public spaces feel unsafe -- affects many parts of the community. The fact that we associate active Wikipedia work on en:wp with AN/I is indicative of the trend. That noticeboard is hardly relevant to the work of most editors, lingering on conflicts of various sorts. So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, regardless of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown out the window. This is where not having safe spaces to discuss what's going on limits transparency... Maybe this is how I work but I feel like we want a culture where it is perfectly acceptable for someone to respond without all the data, for them to make mistakes and get corrected and have that debate and those arguments. So do I. To James: This is one of the most accurate, and articulate, descriptions of the present enWikipedia culture that I have read. Thank you. But, so far, any suggestions for change has been met with apathy or, those advocating change being considered malcontents and troublemakers. Yes, I have been accused of trolling:-). I have been trying to call attention to this problem of a dysfunctional culture in the Project for 4 years now. However, the initiative for change, and the know-how to create it, doesn't appear to exist at the highest levels of the Project. Pity. To Samuel: And, so do I. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
Actually, scrap that. I can think of a few more than two. But the extra ones are all from one common cause - robust views being stated off-wiki to fellow users with advanced privileges, who were badly failing to live up to expectations of the role. On a few occasions that's happened. I'm thinking of a handful of cases from 2007 onwards, where advanced users attacked users or made claims that were unsupported and just shouldn't have. People get heated but personal attacks and dubious claims are not the response I like to see from trusted others. Not rehashing the past but self-correcting (hence no details given and no response sought). Sorry for the incorrect statement though. Still all-in-all, a very small number of cases in 7 years, and not on-wiki. The thrust of the point I was making, is unchanged. As a cultural issue, interaction style is serious in its project impact. That's by *both admins and non-admins* (no reason to give excess leeway to long term non-admins to harm the project by discouraging bona-fide users, any more than we would give excess leeway to long-term repeated mis-citers or persistent original researchers). FT2 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:07 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Of note, arguments against the spirit of the civility policy badly miss the point Marc and others are making. The expectation for collegial conduct between editors (by whatever name) is not a means of repression as some cast it. Its a means to ensure those who will leave if bitten, don't get bitten. It's a necessary culture for long term project growth and survival. People who care about the project should strive for more respect for its spirit, and to live within that. Not less. To underline that, I've been an editor for close to 7 years, dealt with horrible POV warriors (later Arbcom banned, often after months or a yar of engagement on talk pages), dealt with abusive admins. I can speak to the need for incivility. It's vanishingly rare. I can think of 2 occasions by email, one on a web site off-wiki, and none on-wiki, that I've dropped civility in a Wikimedia-related context, and each of those was due to a specific situation involved (where little else would have effect), and after consultation with other experienced users. It may be some people's habit, but so is original research and making claims without evidence, and we don't think twice about expecting people to restrain those habits when they edit. In brief, we don't (as a community) take manners to others seriously enough. That starts at the top and works down (anything else would be hypocrisy). If admins are expected one day to toe the line on the spirit of being supportive, helpful, courteous-if-firm, to everyone, then that would percolate to new admins and the community as a whole. Doing so does not affect people's effectiveness or ability to control problems as admins. Those who cannot may simply disqualify themselves as admins until they learn, much as those who cannot avoid original research would disqualify themselves for various positions of trust and reputation. Good conduct is not alien or hard. Expecting it is not civility police, it's a basic need of a community this size seeking to engage people who are not hardened veterans of internet wars. It's a habit. It can be learned, and it can be expected, and it can happen here as well. You'd be surprised how fast people learn when it's needed to do what they want. FT2 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This is definitely not just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it like that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue... It is also something that I think has roots in all of the active aspects of the community. on 2/18/11 8:08 PM, Samuel Klein at meta...@gmail.com wrote: James, this was a good post. We do need a more active focus on kindness, effective skepticism, and constructive criticism. And I agree that the problem being expressed here (not MZM's comment about transparency, which is valid and should be considered separately) -- the universal trouble with people attacking one another and making public spaces feel unsafe -- affects many parts of the community. The fact that we associate active Wikipedia work on en:wp with AN/I is indicative of the trend. That noticeboard is hardly relevant to the work of most editors, lingering on conflicts of various sorts. So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, regardless of what is happening the tenants of assuming
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Christine Moellenberndt cmoellenber...@wikimedia.org wrote: I am loathe to dive in here, since it was my post that kind of kick-started this whole thing and I certainly don't want to draw any more fire to be honest. But I also feel loathe to stay away, partially for that same reason, but also because of a few other things I've been thinking about not just this afternoon and evening, but in general. I feel like part of the problem here is that there's an expectation of perfection right out of the box for everyone. One of these days I'll learn wiki-markup. looks at the calender and circles 2013 -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Christine Moellenberndt cmoellenber...@wikimedia.org wrote: I am loathe to dive in here, since it was my post that kind of kick-started this whole thing and I certainly don't want to draw any more fire to be honest. Don't worry you didn't kick start anything, It's been started for a long time and a new disucssion is started every few months. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
Hoi, Communication is why I am absolutely happy when I find someone from the staff doing his or her thing on meta or foundation-l. When you compare that to the separation between the professionals and the community that is the result of the many private ways of communicating. Why for instance is there an outreach wiki that includes so many activities that could be on Meta? When outreach is intended to be inclusive of the community, its results in making Meta a ghetto. So Christine, I love you for writing on foundation-l. I am really happy that you gave us the opportunity to learn about VPAT. As a result I blogged about VPAT because never mind that it is not a global standard, the absence of one means that complying to this standard means that we do a good job. Please continue and write to foundation-l and Meta. Grow a thick skin because we will always have new people who will have to learn moderation in order to become effective. It is the pain and the gain of working with an awesome community. Thank you again, GerardM On 17 February 2011 08:47, Christine Moellenberndt cmoellenber...@wikimedia.org wrote: I am loathe to dive in here, since it was my post that kind of kick-started this whole thing and I certainly don't want to draw any more fire to be honest. But I also feel loathe to stay away, partially for that same reason, but also because of a few other things I've been thinking about not just this afternoon and evening, but in general. I feel like part of the problem here is that there's an expectation of perfection right out of the box for everyone. One of the biggest complaints I've been hearing as we start figuring out why it is so many new editors don't come back to the project is, I created and article and it was deleted a few hours/minutes later, before anyone even had a chance to expand it and make it better. It's often decided it's not good enough, even though it wasn't given a chance to be good enough. Other members (both editors and staff) are forever marked by one small mistake, either one that happened years ago when one was new and didn't know the rules or one small one that in the grand scheme of things wasn't really *that* important probably. That blackmark, small as it may be, sticks around forever, dogging you every time you try and do something new. Which is terribly frustrating. We're all human. None of us are perfect by any means. I say that doubly, triply, quadruply about myself. There's a saying I heard somewhere today that Wikipedians are born, not made. I'm not sure I agree with that. Wikipedian tendencies may be born, but Wikipedians are made slowly, over the course of thousands of edits, and hours of reading policies, procedures, guidelines, essays, and talk pages. No one joins a project knowing all of the rules and regulations. That takes time. And yes, they'll make mistakes along the way. That's part of learning. Also part of learning is on the part of the other people around the learner, assuming good faith that the person making the mistakes isn't out to do harm, and is... just learning. And even those who have passed through learning sometimes make mistakes. As my goddaughter says, poo-poo happens. You're rushing to finish something, you forget what you're doing, you have a brain fart, any number of reasons cause that to happen. Or, you just made a simple misjudgment. That happens too because... well, we're human not robots (right? :)). We're going to make mistakes. It's what makes us human and makes our lives more interesting. If we were all perfect... man Wikipedia would be boring! That mistake doesn't mean the person is totally wrong, or bad, or out to get anyone. It just means they made a mistake. And when people make mistakes, it's fine to point them out. It's wonderful! It's how people learn, it's how they grow, and it keeps us humble. But there are ways to deliver that criticism that work better than others. That phrase you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar isn't just an old saying, it's pretty true. I've always figured that's what AGF was meant to address. A hey, did you mean to do that? or a Hrm, why did this happen? is probably better than insult hurling or questioning competence. The latter does nothing but cause the other person to get defensive and learn nothing, and then leads to this giant brawl where everyone gets hurt. The former can lead to good, productive discussions that help everyone learn something. Even phrasing can go a long way to saying things in a way that can be taken as a net positive instead of a negative. Okay, this got long, and probably overly-preachy. Sorry, gang. To sum the rest up: There are more folks reading this list than you see, every mailing list has a ton of lurkers (i've been on my fair share of them and then some; sometimes active, sometimes lurking). Just because someone doesn't speak doesn't mean they're not
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
I stayed at the WMF offices a couple of months ago and checking out this gap was one of the aims of my visit. It was quite an eye opener. Although WMF staff can learn to communicate better, the position seems to be that the community grossly under-estimates what they are doing, their competence, and their focus. In a number of key areas it's the wider community, and the experienced users on lists like these and wikis like Meta, that are mistaken in their view and not got their act together, not WMF staff. Why is that? It's because users on lists like these and sites like Meta are precisely the users who are self-selectedly comfortable with reams of written data, lengthy rules, a technical interface, mailing list norms, typical online bitey debate (a tendency of many online discussions where people are represented only by their written words), and so on. That's a tiny minority of our potential editors and collaborators though. WMF staff - especially technical staff - recognize this as atypical of users much better than the active community does. They gear their efforts to the vast majority of users who, lacking help, will never be able to get engaged in the project. And of course, it takes time to build that up as an infrastructure. This aspect is rarely seen or taken into account by active community members on this list or at Meta. It was quite an eye opener. The WMF office members - including the technical team - were far better grounded in the global nature of the mission and the needs of an average user/editor, than most individual community members seem to be. List contributors might want to recognize and respect their wider perspective. In the meantime speculation too easily becomes bad faith at times. WMF staff may need to communicate better, but it's far from one sided. Active community members must also understand and listen, and measure their words in good faith and thoughtfully. Many WMF staff were only recruited in the last year and excellence comes with time and experience, it's still bedding in. The offices were functional but still being built internally when I was there. There are very many pieces of existing software to maintain and bring up to date, and staff working on new code have limited resources and time as imposed by budgetary limits and the newness of much of the organization. That may give some idea what the staff are dealing with. It's got the right basis and ethos, but growth (including improvements) cannot easily happen overnight. My own personal impression is that another year or 18 months is likely to be needed for this to all bed in. A minor cultural change would be good, where people engaged more collegially and were more patient, recognizing we are all passionate about and working in the same mission. WMF staff learning to communicate better with the wider community is part of that, but community members learning to respect the foundation's focus and the work roles of those who contribute to the mission by working as staff is the other. Hope this is of use or interest. Peace. FT2 On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:00 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are wrong, that's a bad and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
- Original Message From: Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:07:04 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT) On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote: snip A few Wikimedia employees are part of the Community Department, and there should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among them, though she's working as a contractor until the end of February). From what I can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean that overly harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of sidesteps the issue of her in particular discussing MediaWiki) It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are wrong, that's a bad and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the main public list we have.) You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault. I don't know that could agree that *it is stating to become commonplace*It has always been this way. Back when volunteers made the sorts of decisions (or by default failed to make the decisions) that staff now make; they were heavily criticized (much more than I felt warranted given the comparative lack of resources). Let's ask Anthere how supportive she remembers foundation-l being during the working board days. The very first staffers dealt with this as well and it simply continues on today. Historically heavy criticism has even made by people who now happen to be employed as staff (I am thinking of you Erik :) ) Certainly the former mailing list dissidents that are now employed by the WMF should be explain to the rest of the staff and prospective staff what to expect from mailing list dissidents. Erik could honestly put together quite the portfolio for such a course. Of course *most* of the staff shouldn't have to deal with this sort of thing at all, MZMcBride makes a good separation of expectations regarding different kinds of staff. Those who are hired to deal with community issues, however, will have to learn how to deal with community issues in the framework of how the community exists and has historically operated, not how to the deal with communities when the communities finally learn to stop operating in the manner they have always operated in. Comments like earlier ones that staff may just stopping posting on foundation-l if you guys aren't nicer miss the point. That would be WMF's loss much more than foundation-l's. WMF will be able to do much more that it *wants to do* if it can successfully engage with the communities. The communities will be able to do a large majority of what they want to do with or without WMF. WMF only makes the communities more efficient not inherently viable. The reverse is not true. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 17 February 2011 08:47, Christine Moellenberndt (and by the way, this is just little me with a cat on her lap talking, not WMF employee talking) Something which might be worth bearing in mind is that (sfaiaa!) everyone involved with the projects - staff and volunteer alike - use a consistent attribution. In many companies, where staff will have interactions with non-staff in a purely online environment, they are required to maintain two identities: one 'real' for 'official' work and one 'fake' when they want to interact as an individual. I certainly recall having to do this when working on msn and I believe that such official-but-sortof-sockpuppet is nowhere near as open as what WMF staffers are displaying, which is to all our (ie. us readers) benefit. Alison ps. Yes, I'm aware there have been specific exceptions to this in the past, but that was some years ago now. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Alison M. Wheeler wikime...@alisonwheeler.com wrote: On 17 February 2011 08:47, Christine Moellenberndt (and by the way, this is just little me with a cat on her lap talking, not WMF employee talking) Something which might be worth bearing in mind is that (sfaiaa!) everyone involved with the projects - staff and volunteer alike - use a consistent attribution. In many companies, where staff will have interactions with non-staff in a purely online environment, they are required to maintain two identities: one 'real' for 'official' work and one 'fake' when they want to interact as an individual. I certainly recall having to do this when working on msn and I believe that such official-but-sortof-sockpuppet is nowhere near as open as what WMF staffers are displaying, which is to all our (ie. us readers) benefit. Alison ps. Yes, I'm aware there have been specific exceptions to this in the past, but that was some years ago now. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Hi there I just wanted to get my thought in on this. On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote: At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, to escape the unfounded criticism. Tell them to go ahead, this list has already been referred to troll-l and a dozen excuses have been offered why the staff ignores it for the most part after someone dared to question one of the beloved fellow. The volume of the criticism is only going to get louder if the staff continues to ignore the concerns, I'd like to believe that there is a pattern there. You can't drown out your criticism by ignoring a mailing list. I think it's a central problem with the foundation, it seems to be heading in the opposite direction than how they perceive it themselves. I think it only proves the concerns that have been raised before, the foundation might just stop communicating altogether and use this list for announcements, whether anyone likes them or not. Second Christine, you can't answer someone off-list to a question that was asked on-list and expect people to be satisfied. Its not about openness or this mailing list in particular, I think you might have the same issue with any other public form of communication. If someone asks a question in a conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually and expect that to satisfy the rest of the audience. I don't agree with the rest of the criticism against you on the list, and please don't take it personally but that explanation could have been better. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com wrote: I've been a community member a lot longer than I've been staff, even still, I only skim foundation-l about half the time. In my thinking, to really get properly involved with a thread (rather than throwing out random comments which might only be tangentially related) it can take a lot reading, investigating and writing. My salary comes from donations, and I don't want to spend that paid time on something that isn't necessarily my job (When Google Apps came up, I responded), some could see that as wasteful. Now if the entire community feels that every staff member should read and respond to foundation-l, well then that would be a different story all together. Then who do you expect to follow and reply on the list, if not that staff. You know, the people being paid to run the projects, the majority of discussions are related to their work and operations. If they don't want to spend their paid time on doing something so unproductive as answering the community's concern then who should. Oh...you meant it's for all us non-employees, who have jobs and responsibilities outside of Wikipedia, only we are expected to read the list...silly me. I think I understand why it's seen as wasteful. It's for all the volunteers who give their time reading and thinking about Wikimedia related activities, we can't expect the paid employees to do the same...or care. I think that's what it comes down, people complaining on this list care for the most part, and the staff might not, as much. it's just a job to them like any other, or that's what your justification led me to believe. Just a thought here, but maybe the Community Department, should actually include some people from the community. I know it might be against some super-secret policy of avoiding community members but at least the Community Department could try including someone from the community. -- Sorry my karma ran over your dogma. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
One suggestion I made was that, since communication between office and community is so critical, it might be worth the foundation employing one person at the office purely for community/office liaison (via this list, on Meta, etc). In other words their role is to be at the office and responsive to the community on lists and wikis, ensure community questions and concerns are addressed or not lost, where other staff may not be able to do so as fully as some would wish. It'd cost, but it may well be worth it. Worthwhile? Or wasteful? FT2 Yes, worthwhile, although this list would be only a minor part of such monitoring. An experienced Wikipedian needs to monitor the mailing lists, Village Pump, requests for arbitration, and the administrative noticeboards regularly and prepare a brief summary for staff daily. Emphasis would be on issues which have potential to or already affect public relations or Foundation resources. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 2/17/11 9:23 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: Yes, worthwhile, although this list would be only a minor part of such monitoring. An experienced Wikipedian needs to monitor the mailing lists, Village Pump, requests for arbitration, and the administrative noticeboards regularly and prepare a brief summary for staff daily. Emphasis would be on issues which have potential to or already affect public relations or Foundation resources. Actually, we already do this. I make a point of visiting AN, AN/I, RfA, Village pump, and at least glance at the conversations on 11 mailing lists several times throughout my day (or tease out certain threads if I can't read everything at once). I try to hit the equivalents on the other projects as well on a regular basis. That's in addition to everything else I do each day. If I see something that's noteworthy, I make sure Philippe, Zack, somebody is aware of what's going on. Philippe does similar (at least while he's not vacationing, or maybe he still is knowing him!). I also watched the Arbcom election, and I'm watching the Steward one as well. And when I have the time (which hasn't been often lately, unfortunately) I hang out in IRC as well. So yes, we do know what's going on. We may not catch everything in a community this big, but we do try to keep an idea of what folks are talking about not only on things that affect the Foundation, but trends in the broader community that maybe we can help with (new software patches, maybe a project to see why things are a certain way [like the new editor decline], etc.). -Christine --- Christine Moellenberndt Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation christ...@wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 2/17/11 8:29 AM, whothis wrote: If someone asks a question in a conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually and expect that to satisfy the rest of the audience. Actually, I'd like to beg to differ here. I have been to conferences where questions have been asked publicly to a panel. If the question seems too off topic for the general audience, or too specific for the general audience, the panel member being questioned will generally defer to answering the question after the main panel discussion is over. Then the two get together and talk it out off-panel if you will. At least in my discipline, I've not seen anyone get upset over it (I'm usually grateful that it happened :) And oftentimes the asker is pleased as well because it gives more time to get their question answered fully). If it was a question I was also interested in, I'll go and talk to the panelist/question asker myself as well. Or, if the audience disagrees, someone else will chime up Actually I'd like to know that too, or That's a valid question that maybe should be answered here. And it goes into that forum. But usually, it stays off-panel. Or maybe my discipline is weird :) (wait, I knew that already.) Just a thought here, but maybe the Community Department, should actually include some people from the community. I know it might be against some super-secret policy of avoiding community members but at least the Community Department could try including someone from the community. You would be surprised to know how many people in the Foundation as a whole, including the Community department (and a BUNCH of the folks working on the fundraiser), come out of the community, including the Deputy Director and the Head of Reader Relations (who I report directly to) among others. And even if we don't come out of THIS community, some of us come out of other online communities. Which can give a fresh perspective and alleviate tunnel vision. Which, to my mind, is all to the good. -Christine - Christine Moellenberndt Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation christ...@wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Not quite so. I've just been working at the community department and indeed, it does include quite a large proportion from the community. When I was there, Steve Walling was around, two people from Russian community were working in the community department for a week, Seddon from enwiki and Wikimedia UK was visiting in a few days. Alison dropped by to that department as did a couple of others. There were others but I didn't get all the names. For the most part, they were trying to do the most with their time so lists took a back seat. I think you missed my point, I meant people employed at the community department, I only went by the staff page. From the 9 people currently listed in that department, there are apparently only 2 people from the community in the community department. Some of the titles, I admit seem rather vague and not necessarily related to anything with the community at all. The two people from the community, Steven Walling being one of them has already mentioned on another thread that his position is temporary and ends in a few months. As for Philippe Beaudette, the only thing I know about him is that he enacted the OTRS identification policy while leaving for vacation, and apparently no one else from the community department knew anything about it except him. I never referred to the visitors, who I believe have been visiting prior to the formation of the community department. Most people here - whether foundation staff, community, or other list members - have a real life to get on with as well. When it gets busy, routine mailing list chatter is not a priority; doing the job is. The office staff work heavily, I didn't see people there with time to kick around on a list like this except at the cost of ignoring other priorities. Well, it's feedback related to their work. Sometimes its a direct reaction to what they are doing, I would argue that this list should be a priority in that regard. One suggestion I made was that, since communication between office and community is so critical, it might be worth the foundation employing one person at the office purely for community/office liaison (via this list, on Meta, etc). In other words their role is to be at the office and responsive to the community on lists and wikis, ensure community questions and concerns are addressed or not lost, where other staff may not be able to do so as fully as some would wish. It'd cost, but it may well be worth it. Worthwhile? Or wasteful? The foundation needs to do a lot of things, to start with some clarification about the supposed departments and titles. It all seems rather vague from the staff page. I have already stated that there is a huge communication gap between the community and the foundation, this list merely seems to be employed for announcements by staff members. But again, I doubt anyone cares for my opinion since this is troll-l. FT2 On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, whothis whoth...@gmail.com wrote: Tell them to go ahead, this list has already been referred to troll-l and a dozen excuses have been offered why the staff ignores it for the most part after someone dared to question one of the beloved fellow. The volume of the criticism is only going to get louder if the staff continues to ignore the concerns, I'd like to believe that there is a pattern there. You can't drown out your criticism by ignoring a mailing list. I think it's a central problem with the foundation, it seems to be heading in the opposite direction than how they perceive it themselves. I think it only proves the concerns that have been raised before, the foundation might just stop communicating altogether and use this list for announcements, whether anyone likes them or not. (snip) On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com wrote: (Snip) Then who do you expect to follow and reply on the list, if not that staff. You know, the people being paid to run the projects, the majority of discussions are related to their work and operations. If they don't want to spend their paid time on doing something so unproductive as answering the community's concern then who should. Oh...you meant it's for all us non-employees, who have jobs and responsibilities outside of Wikipedia, only we are expected to read the list...silly me. I think I understand why it's seen as wasteful. It's for all the volunteers who give their time reading and thinking about Wikimedia related activities, we can't expect the paid employees to do the same...or care. I think that's what it comes down, people complaining on this list care for the most part, and the staff might not, as much. it's just a job to them like any other, or that's what your justification led me to believe. Just a thought here, but maybe the Community Department, should actually
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Christine Moellenberndt cmoellenber...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 2/17/11 8:29 AM, whothis wrote: If someone asks a question in a conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually and expect that to satisfy the rest of the audience. Actually, I'd like to beg to differ here. I have been to conferences where questions have been asked publicly to a panel. If the question seems too off topic for the general audience, or too specific for the general audience, the panel member being questioned will generally defer to answering the question after the main panel discussion is over. Then the two get together and talk it out off-panel if you will. At least in my discipline, I've not seen anyone get upset over it (I'm usually grateful that it happened :) And oftentimes the asker is pleased as well because it gives more time to get their question answered fully). If it was a question I was also interested in, I'll go and talk to the panelist/question asker myself as well. Or, if the audience disagrees, someone else will chime up Actually I'd like to know that too, or That's a valid question that maybe should be answered here. And it goes into that forum. But usually, it stays off-panel. Or maybe my discipline is weird :) (wait, I knew that already.) hah...I was referring to proper mailing list etiquette. The explanation above is rather lengthy to follow, let's just say I am not the only one complaining here. Just a thought here, but maybe the Community Department, should actually include some people from the community. I know it might be against some super-secret policy of avoiding community members but at least the Community Department could try including someone from the community. You would be surprised to know how many people in the Foundation as a whole, including the Community department (and a BUNCH of the folks working on the fundraiser), come out of the community, including the Deputy Director and the Head of Reader Relations (who I report directly to) among others. And even if we don't come out of THIS community, some of us come out of other online communities. Which can give a fresh perspective and alleviate tunnel vision. Which, to my mind, is all to the good. Yes, the Deputy Director and the Head of Reader Relations, surprised you stopped there, you could have added Steven walling to bring the total to 3 out of almost 60. That seems like the appropriate ratio. With all due respect, alternative point of views brought in by other online communities might be the problem here. -Christine - Christine Moellenberndt Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation christ...@wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Sorry my karma ran over your dogma. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Christine Moellenberndt cmoellenber...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 2/17/11 9:23 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: Yes, worthwhile, although this list would be only a minor part of such monitoring. An experienced Wikipedian needs to monitor the mailing lists, Village Pump, requests for arbitration, and the administrative noticeboards regularly and prepare a brief summary for staff daily. Emphasis would be on issues which have potential to or already affect public relations or Foundation resources. Actually, we already do this. I make a point of visiting AN, AN/I, RfA, Village pump, and at least glance at the conversations on 11 mailing lists several times throughout my day (or tease out certain threads if I can't read everything at once). I try to hit the equivalents on the other projects as well on a regular basis. That's in addition to everything else I do each day. If I see something that's noteworthy, I make sure Philippe, Zack, somebody is aware of what's going on. Philippe does similar (at least while he's not vacationing, or maybe he still is knowing him!). I also watched the Arbcom election, and I'm watching the Steward one as well. And when I have the time (which hasn't been often lately, unfortunately) I hang out in IRC as well. All that seems rather useless for the most part, I doubt anything from an RfA or the AN/I has been brought up this list. This list seems to be mostly policy related discussions, and its probably much easier to follow than what you listed above. Again, if you were to ask a community member about half the stuff you follow, they would have told you that 90% of it is rather useless and trivial. There are other policy related things which seem to be going by without notice. So yes, we do know what's going on. We may not catch everything in a community this big, but we do try to keep an idea of what folks are talking about not only on things that affect the Foundation, but trends in the broader community that maybe we can help with (new software patches, maybe a project to see why things are a certain way [like the new editor decline], etc.). I only referred to the mailing list, not that hard to follow. -Christine --- Christine Moellenberndt Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation christ...@wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Sorry my karma ran over your dogma. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On 17 February 2011 18:49, whothis whoth...@gmail.com wrote: All that seems rather useless for the most part, I doubt anything from an RfA or the AN/I has been brought up this list. WT:RFA tends to be pretty wide ranging and WP:AN/I is one of the places major flareups can begin (although I would generally suggest that tracking WP:AN is more efficient) This list seems to be mostly policy related discussions, and its probably much easier to follow than what you listed above. WP:AN/I is however very much on the coalface of en.wikipedia. If you want to know what problems are cropping on a day to basis that is the kind of thing you need to pay attention to rather than the rather more abstracted mailing lists. Again, if you were to ask a community member about half the stuff you follow, they would have told you that 90% of it is rather useless and trivial. Thats true of pretty much everything though. There are other policy related things which seem to be going by without notice. With the number of policies listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies The weakings who sleep or do silly things like actually edit the article pages are going to miss stuff. Sure this will sometimes result in you staring blearily at a deletion log wondering why CSD#T2 has come back to life (answer it means something different now) but that is pretty unavoidable. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote: At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, to escape the unfounded criticism. This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions on this list -- in some cases not even their own actions. Obviously, we should be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to default to wrong until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
Dan Rosenthal wrote: On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote: At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, to escape the unfounded criticism. This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions on this list -- in some cases not even their own actions. Obviously, we should be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to default to wrong until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore. Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already, though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. Wikimedia employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people, so Wikimedia employees take the time to do what's required of them, but nothing more. That's to be expected. Personally, I think it's rather strange that people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list and the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make. A few Wikimedia employees are part of the Community Department, and there should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among them, though she's working as a contractor until the end of February). From what I can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean that overly harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of sidesteps the issue of her in particular discussing MediaWiki) It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are wrong, that's a bad and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote: Dan Rosenthal wrote: On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote: At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, to escape the unfounded criticism. This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions on this list -- in some cases not even their own actions. Obviously, we should be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to default to wrong until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore. Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already, though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. Wikimedia employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people, so Wikimedia employees take the time to do what's required of them, but nothing more. That's to be expected. Personally, I think it's rather strange that people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list and the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make. A few Wikimedia employees are part of the Community Department, and there should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among them, though she's working as a contractor until the end of February). From what I can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean that overly harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of sidesteps the issue of her in particular discussing MediaWiki) It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are wrong, that's a bad and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the main public list we have.) You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Dan Rosenthal wrote: On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote: At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, to escape the unfounded criticism. It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are wrong, that's a bad and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring. MZMcBride I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This is definitely not just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it like that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue (we're good at that). It is also something that I think has roots in all of the active aspects of the community (I at the very least see everyone, staff/contributer/reader/donor etc as part of that community) . There is no doubt that there are many things that the foundation, the local arbcoms, the stewards etc could do far better (though while I'm biased I do think there has been improvement on that). So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, regardless of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown out the window. This thread is about when it happens to staff but the same exact thing happens to other community members speak up. We see it with Arbcom members or Stewards, Article writers and anti-vandal fighters. So many people who love the community and truly want what is best for it are met only with skepticism, the assumption of bad faith and the decision that they only way to question is to do so harshly and without mercy. Is that really what we our community wants or needs? While the words that are used espouse the rightful desire (that I think every one of us wants) for transparency, discussion and community input (and decisions) throughout the foundation and the projects I worry that the result we are getting from this style of attack is exactly the opposite. We are breeding a culture where maybe the staff member doesn't stop posting here (or the Arbcom member stop posting decisions or the stewards enforcing them) but where everyone is forced to sit and think and plan the best way to break the news writing and rewriting announcements to try and spin it how the rest of the community will want to hear it (or worse how particular people they know will be vocal want to hear it). In the end they still post but they do so with far less transparency, far less discussion and take far longer . I've always found that one of the best ways for me to work is to throw my ideas in to the mix and debate it out with everyone. I end up with a better understanding of what all the variables and issues are and in the end I feel we come up with a better conclusion. The other side, asking everyone to come up with their own idea means they come back in the end having 'decided' on the best course of action. Getting them to deviate from that action is far harder now because they've hashed it all out on their own, they're much more sure and in the end I don't think we get the best conclusion because we don't get to mesh everyone's nearly as well. Maybe this is how I work but I feel like we want a culture where it is perfectly acceptable for someone to respond without all the data, for them to make mistakes and get corrected and have that debate and those arguments. I think we come out all the better for it. But to do that we have to be able to do it in a collegial (sp?) way. I know I want that in a work environment and whether I'm getting paid or not I certainly see the projects as a work environment for us all. James -- James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
Le 17/02/2011 02:07, Dan Rosenthal a écrit : I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the main public list we have.) You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault. In summary, you detect a trend of criticism towards the staff's actions from many independent lists and you conclude that it is unfair, unfounded or caused by some foreign cause. It is much simpler to hypothetize that the staff's actions are the common cause. Just assume good faith when you're beign told that the opacity is the cause. Thinking about why people are asking for transparency would help solve the issue much better than denying the legitimity of their concerns, whether by saying that their pretenses are false or invalid. Democracy is the best way to understand each other. Some want it because they believe in equality as a end. Some don't care about it and just want to keep their job or mission going, and they're ready to accept it as the rules of the game. If no common ground is found, then mistrust arise. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote: Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already, though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. Wikimedia employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people, so Wikimedia employees take the time to do what's required of them, but nothing more. That's to be expected. Personally, I think it's rather strange that people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list and the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make. snip-- ..but that doesn't mean that overly harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a responsibility to be as open as possible. --snip MZMcBride Thanks MZ. As a point of clarification I work with the on-boarding of most, if not all staff, and they are all highly encouraged to join this list and others (announce, internal...) and are given an overview of the various lists and wikis - specifically if they will be in a position that has them working directly with the community. Most positions are in some way community facing, and others, like my own aren't necessarily by definition but overlap enough that it's good practice for all to join. That being said, there are a high volume of emails on this list and it is difficult keeping up with all replies and tangental conversations on top of the other lists and work I have. I imagine others at WMF are in the same boat. I do tend to see a lot of generalization and stereotyping on this list which makes me frown, and I also see a lot of language or phrasing that I don't consider civil. I'd love it if this list were a tool for the community and WMF staff, fellows or contractors to interact and collaborate openly on but I agree with the sentiment that that is unlikely to happen when you are worried you will be attacked or criticized openly on a searchable public list. That's key in a few ways, for the staff this is not only a passion (yes, we do screen all staff for alignment or interest in the mission along with several other aligned values of the projects ;) ) but it is also our livelihood and when things get overly critical or dig into personnel issues it's a very big deal. Not all community members on this list identify with their real names so there is a slight shroud of anonymity especially when it comes to the outside world. That's not so with staff. There is also the tone piece, many interactions on this list simply wouldn't be phrased the way they are if they happened in person. That leads people to be reactive, to be hesitant to respond or simply to unsubscribe. When we are able to get passionate community members with us, either in visits to the office or at meet-ups or events we get much more productive interaction. It doesn't mean we all agree and hold hands around a fire. We get to prod the whys and hows and share different view points where and when they exist. That's not always true in email on a public list, specifically this list. I've wondered if we shouldn't all collaboratively create a rules of engagement covenant for this list that by joining or remaining a member of this list we agree to abide by. Stuff like, I won't be a jerk - I agree to respect others though my opinion may differ - and I will assume good faith. I would think we wouldn't have to call that last one out, it's really a mindset for the community as well as the staff but I find that of all that seems to be left out of communications on this list a majority of the time. -Daniel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
Dan Rosenthal wrote: I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the main public list we have.) You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault. I'm going to assume this was just phrased poorly because you seem to be saying that criticism is happening in a lot of places, so clearly there's just too much criticism. That seems rather backward and wrong. If there's more and more criticism in various forums, I'd venture to guess that there are actual underlying problems, not just people who are being too critical. It's possible that it's a mix of both, but the fact that you're seeing more and more people (some of whom I imagine you respect and trust) make complaints or criticisms indicates to me that there is likely a fundamental issue with the actors' actions. If criticism is unduly harsh in your opinion, you should say so to the people doing the criticizing as it happens (privately or publicly). Nobody's perfect; sometimes people are too harsh. And sometimes text is just mis-read or mis-phrased. That's the nature of text-based communication, or any communication, really. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:29 AM, MZMcBride wrote: Dan Rosenthal wrote: I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the main public list we have.) You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault. I'm going to assume this was just phrased poorly because you seem to be saying that criticism is happening in a lot of places, so clearly there's just too much criticism. That seems rather backward and wrong. If there's more and more criticism in various forums, I'd venture to guess that there are actual underlying problems, not just people who are being too critical. It's possible that it's a mix of both, but the fact that you're seeing more and more people (some of whom I imagine you respect and trust) make complaints or criticisms indicates to me that there is likely a fundamental issue with the actors' actions. If criticism is unduly harsh in your opinion, you should say so to the people doing the criticizing as it happens (privately or publicly). Nobody's perfect; sometimes people are too harsh. And sometimes text is just mis-read or mis-phrased. That's the nature of text-based communication, or any communication, really. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Yeah, I realize (after the painkillers have worn off) that I actually meant to say hostility and suspicion more than I meant to say criticism. Criticism should always be welcome. I'm talking about the unfounded stuff. I agree with your conclusions about what the increasing amounts would indicate, but in my experience it tends to be based around completely different people each time, implying to me that the anger is more generalized and lashing out at whoever is the target of the moment. I guess this is my blanket statement towards all the people lately whose criticisms I think have been a bit too harsh. I wonder if anyone else has come to similar conclusions or if I'm just wrong. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Pronoein wrote: Le 17/02/2011 02:07, Dan Rosenthal a écrit : I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the main public list we have.) You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault. In summary, you detect a trend of criticism towards the staff's actions from many independent lists and you conclude that it is unfair, unfounded or caused by some foreign cause. It is much simpler to hypothetize that the staff's actions are the common cause. Just assume good faith when you're beign told that the opacity is the cause. Thinking about why people are asking for transparency would help solve the issue much better than denying the legitimity of their concerns, whether by saying that their pretenses are false or invalid. Democracy is the best way to understand each other. Some want it because they believe in equality as a end. Some don't care about it and just want to keep their job or mission going, and they're ready to accept it as the rules of the game. If no common ground is found, then mistrust arise. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say assume good faith? That does not make much sense to me. Good faith is a two-way street. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 21:00, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already, You might be surprised at the number that do subscribe. Not that I've got an official count (since people use their personal accounts, such as myself), but a majority of the staff _are_ subscribed to foundation-l. In fact, during tech orientation (A process I'm still working on), I recommend to everyone that they sign up for Foundation-l. Wikimedia employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people, I do subscribe every staff member to our staff-l mailing list. This is for everyones benefit, it's how the staff communicates vital (and sometimes fun) information to everyone else. Additionally, for those who never previously have used mailing lists, it gets them familiar with the concept. I can't think of one current staff who has _never_ posted to the list at least once. Personally, I think it's rather strange that people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list and the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make. I've been a community member a lot longer than I've been staff, even still, I only skim foundation-l about half the time. In my thinking, to really get properly involved with a thread (rather than throwing out random comments which might only be tangentially related) it can take a lot reading, investigating and writing. My salary comes from donations, and I don't want to spend that paid time on something that isn't necessarily my job (When Google Apps came up, I responded), some could see that as wasteful. Now if the entire community feels that every staff member should read and respond to foundation-l, well then that would be a different story all together. I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong, or suggest what we do... just a few bits from someone who's spent time on both sides of the fence. -Jon PS. I'm writing this on my own time. -- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] / KJ6FNQ http://snowulf.com/ http://ipv6wiki.net/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
Le 17/02/2011 03:41, Dan Rosenthal a écrit : Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say assume good faith? That does not make much sense to me. Good faith is a two-way street. Not at all. I'm saying it is best to try to understand instead of rejecting. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:49 AM, Pronoein wrote: Le 17/02/2011 03:41, Dan Rosenthal a écrit : Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say assume good faith? That does not make much sense to me. Good faith is a two-way street. Not at all. I'm saying it is best to try to understand instead of rejecting. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
I am loathe to dive in here, since it was my post that kind of kick-started this whole thing and I certainly don't want to draw any more fire to be honest. But I also feel loathe to stay away, partially for that same reason, but also because of a few other things I've been thinking about not just this afternoon and evening, but in general. I feel like part of the problem here is that there's an expectation of perfection right out of the box for everyone. One of the biggest complaints I've been hearing as we start figuring out why it is so many new editors don't come back to the project is, I created and article and it was deleted a few hours/minutes later, before anyone even had a chance to expand it and make it better. It's often decided it's not good enough, even though it wasn't given a chance to be good enough. Other members (both editors and staff) are forever marked by one small mistake, either one that happened years ago when one was new and didn't know the rules or one small one that in the grand scheme of things wasn't really *that* important probably. That blackmark, small as it may be, sticks around forever, dogging you every time you try and do something new. Which is terribly frustrating. We're all human. None of us are perfect by any means. I say that doubly, triply, quadruply about myself. There's a saying I heard somewhere today that Wikipedians are born, not made. I'm not sure I agree with that. Wikipedian tendencies may be born, but Wikipedians are made slowly, over the course of thousands of edits, and hours of reading policies, procedures, guidelines, essays, and talk pages. No one joins a project knowing all of the rules and regulations. That takes time. And yes, they'll make mistakes along the way. That's part of learning. Also part of learning is on the part of the other people around the learner, assuming good faith that the person making the mistakes isn't out to do harm, and is... just learning. And even those who have passed through learning sometimes make mistakes. As my goddaughter says, poo-poo happens. You're rushing to finish something, you forget what you're doing, you have a brain fart, any number of reasons cause that to happen. Or, you just made a simple misjudgment. That happens too because... well, we're human not robots (right? :)). We're going to make mistakes. It's what makes us human and makes our lives more interesting. If we were all perfect... man Wikipedia would be boring! That mistake doesn't mean the person is totally wrong, or bad, or out to get anyone. It just means they made a mistake. And when people make mistakes, it's fine to point them out. It's wonderful! It's how people learn, it's how they grow, and it keeps us humble. But there are ways to deliver that criticism that work better than others. That phrase you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar isn't just an old saying, it's pretty true. I've always figured that's what AGF was meant to address. A hey, did you mean to do that? or a Hrm, why did this happen? is probably better than insult hurling or questioning competence. The latter does nothing but cause the other person to get defensive and learn nothing, and then leads to this giant brawl where everyone gets hurt. The former can lead to good, productive discussions that help everyone learn something. Even phrasing can go a long way to saying things in a way that can be taken as a net positive instead of a negative. Okay, this got long, and probably overly-preachy. Sorry, gang. To sum the rest up: There are more folks reading this list than you see, every mailing list has a ton of lurkers (i've been on my fair share of them and then some; sometimes active, sometimes lurking). Just because someone doesn't speak doesn't mean they're not there. One thing I've learned through my time training in my discipline is that you can often learn more from the silences than you do from the voices speaking. My hope is that through all of this we can perhaps bring down the rhetoric a little and tempt the silences to speak to us a little more. They have valuable insights, too. -Christine (gets a little poetic when it gets late. sorry guys :)) (and by the way, this is just little me with a cat on her lap talking, not WMF employee talking) - Christine Moellenberndt Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation christ...@wikimedia.org On 2/16/11 10:43 PM, Jon Davis wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 21:00, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already, You might be surprised at the number that do subscribe. Not that I've got an official count (since people use their personal accounts, such as myself), but a majority of the staff _are_ subscribed to foundation-l. In fact, during tech orientation (A process I'm still working on), I recommend to everyone that they sign up for Foundation-l.
