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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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,
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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),
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
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
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
