Even if it is an en-wiki only issue, it's having a clear impact on editor retention and therefore the long-term sustainability of the project. I think trying to fix that is easy to dismiss as "micromanagement" but sometimes it turns out that fixing the big picture /does/ require organizational leadership to address specific things.
-Leigh On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, here's the issue. It's never been clear to me whether this is a > WMF-wide issue or it's an English Wikipedia specific issue. The > overwhelming majority of people participating on this list work almost > exclusively on enwiki, and almost every single experience discussed here > involves enwiki. > > As important as we all know English Wikipedia to be (if nothing else, it's > the fundraising driver from which the bulk of donations derives), it's also > only one of hundreds of projects. There are issues with the Board > micromanaging a single project directly, and pretty serious issues when the > Board tries to fix a problem on one project by creating a global policy or > rule that may actually be counterproductive in other areas. (And as we can > see from the obtuseness that Commons shows about such issues as personality > rights - a major gendergap issue in my mind - even when the Board does try > to intervene, it's often ineffective.) > > Risker/Anne > > > > > On 3 July 2014 14:58, Leigh Honeywell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The more I hear about this, the more I think this is something that >> WMF needs to address at an institutional level (Board etc.) to resolve >> these process issues and loopholes. Has this ever been taken "up the >> chain"? >> >> -Leigh >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> You know, I sat on Arbcom for five years, and there were several >> >> occasions >> >> when I practically begged those complaining about the behaviour of >> >> certain >> >> individuals to initiate a case....but nobody wanted to do that... >> > >> > >> > Well, you know I did actually take one of the worst misogynists on >> > en.wiki >> > to ArbCom,[1] and it was such a horrible experience that I decided to >> > never >> > do it again. After giving up a month of my life to the case and enduring >> > constant harassment during the process, all of the evidence that I >> > painstakingly assembled, presented, and defended was completely ignored >> > by >> > ArbCom, and instead he was banned for a year for making a legal threat. >> > He >> > is now free to return on the condition that he simply agrees not to make >> > any >> > more legal threats. You were actually on that ArbCom panel, Risker, so I >> > don't really understand your argument that taking incivil editors to >> > ArbCom >> > is a good idea. To me it is worse than a waste of effort, it is actually >> > counterproductive and an invitation to be relentlessly harassed. >> > >> > 1. >> > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair_Haines_2&oldid=360884518 >> > >> > Ryan Kaldari >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Gendergap mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Leigh Honeywell >> http://hypatia.ca >> @hypatiadotca >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > -- Leigh Honeywell http://hypatia.ca @hypatiadotca _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
