[Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed? I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements. Thanks! ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed? I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements. Thanks! ,Wil English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
Hello, Without ever being standardized or including age, there is a social tradition called the Friendly space policy adopted by many Wikimedia events. Here is one instance: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy The idea is that in-person Wikimedia events should be safe and welcoming to everyone. It does not mention age in this iteration. In practice, this policy and derivations have been used to promote positive behavioral norms in imitation of those developed by Western diversity training and sensitivity training traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_training I would like for the Friendly space policy to continue to be developed into a short, easy-to-read behavioral guideline which can be adopted by anyone for in-person events and which guide online behavior. I would like for policies like that child protection policy to serve as more nuanced backing of the intent of the friendly space policy. I favor development of best practices not only for the sake of the Wikimedia community, but also to set standards which can be adopted by other groups. Developing these kinds of policies has proven to be a lot more complicated than anyone anticipated but I think our community is positioned to come to consensus about what suits many people. With regard to the child protection policy - beyond connecting that to a friendly space policy, I wish that there could be some kind of support for harassment of people in any context. I would like for some minimal plan to be made to receive harassment complaints of any kind then to refer people to whatever services are available, or to tell them that no services are available. For my own interests I wanted this with regard to LGBT related harassment on Wikipedia, but I know that harassment of women is also a problem, and if we develop a youth policy then I think it would be useful to combine all the concerns of the stakeholders into one place in which anyone can present their report and have it considered, whatever that means. yours, On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed? I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements. Thanks! ,Wil English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 l...@bluerasberry.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On May 23, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed? I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements. Thanks! ,Wil English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time. Risker/Anne Right. I can guarantee you that the policy more or less as written will be implemented by most senior experienced admins. It documented existing very poorly publicized informal practice in that regard. There is and has been much controversy as to whether it's good, fair, reasonable, appropriate. As with the responding to threats of harm essay (originally responding to threats of suicide, now expanded), there were considerable theory based top down discussions that did not resolve, followed by someone documenting what was actually being done most of the time and that settling is as precedent. This is perhaps not the best process. However, even in the absence of total community support on these issues, admins and arbcom and senior community members will act to protect individual people and the community and encyclopedia and foundation. It seems to be agreed that documenting usual parameters for that, so people understand the usual responses, was a net positive. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Sent from Kangphone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On 23 May 2014 13:09, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed? I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements. Thanks! ,Wil English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time. Risker/Anne Just noting in addition that on the left side of the page there are language links to four similar policies on other Wikipedias: Catalan, Indonesian, Persian and Ukrainian. Since few other Wikipedias have active Arbitration Committees and each existing arbcom has a different scope, it's pretty clear that processes and policies would vary from project to project. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
I suppose the caveat would be that what actually happens may be *broader* than the policy suggests, if anything (eg deleting personal information on a pre-emptive basis) On the English Wikipedia, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children%27s_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents In addition to the English Wikipedia policy, note that there's versions on four other wikis, as well. Catalan notes that theirs was adaptat de l'anglesa i de Commons, so probably close in general content, and judging by the dates on them I suspect the others had a similar source, but you may want to check this. The Commons policy is at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection - also adapted from enwiki but marked as 'proposed'. There's a policy also marked as proposed on meta, dating from 2010; however, as it quotes the terms of service, I think we can reasonably conclude that the content does have the force of policy despite this tag :-) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Child_protection The Wikimedia-wide terms of use were formally codified in 2012 (there had been ToU before then, but they mostly dealt with copyright issues) and do include relevant material in Section 4. But I know this has been a topic raised on many occasions well before 2010-2012... Andrew. On 23 May 2014 18:34, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On May 23, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed? I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements. Thanks! ,Wil English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time. Risker/Anne Right. I can guarantee you that the policy more or less as written will be implemented by most senior experienced admins. It documented existing very poorly publicized informal practice in that regard. There is and has been much controversy as to whether it's good, fair, reasonable, appropriate. As with the responding to threats of harm essay (originally responding to threats of suicide, now expanded), there were considerable theory based top down discussions that did not resolve, followed by someone documenting what was actually being done most of the time and that settling is as precedent. This is perhaps not the best process. However, even in the absence of total community support on these issues, admins and arbcom and senior community members will act to protect individual people and the community and encyclopedia and foundation. It seems to be agreed that documenting usual parameters for that, so people understand the usual responses, was a net positive. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Sent from Kangphone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
Wil Sinclair, 23/05/2014 19:05: Is the following a full statement No. You're looking for: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities (first two and last subsections). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
This is really helpful. To clarify: Is it correct that each project/subdomain of Wikipedia and Wikimedia has its own, potentially unique Child Protection Policy? How many of those policies are marked as Proposed? Are the Proposed policies enforced? Are there projects/subdomains of Wikipedia and Wikimedia that have no Child Protection Policy at all? I'll follow up on the issue of harassment policy in another thread, since it seems like Child Protection Policy has been addressed specifically with its own policies. Thanks, all! ,Wil On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: I suppose the caveat would be that what actually happens may be *broader* than the policy suggests, if anything (eg deleting personal information on a pre-emptive basis) On the English Wikipedia, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children%27s_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents In addition to the English Wikipedia policy, note that there's versions on four other wikis, as well. Catalan notes that theirs was adaptat de l'anglesa i de Commons, so probably close in general content, and judging by the dates on them I suspect the others had a similar source, but you may want to check this. The Commons policy is at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection - also adapted from enwiki but marked as 'proposed'. There's a policy also marked as proposed on meta, dating from 2010; however, as it quotes the terms of service, I think we can reasonably conclude that the content does have the force of policy despite this tag :-) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Child_protection The Wikimedia-wide terms of use were formally codified in 2012 (there had been ToU before then, but they mostly dealt with copyright issues) and do include relevant material in Section 4. But I know this has been a topic raised on many occasions well before 2010-2012... Andrew. On 23 May 2014 18:34, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On May 23, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed? I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements. Thanks! ,Wil English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time. Risker/Anne Right. I can guarantee you that the policy more or less as written will be implemented by most senior experienced admins. It documented existing very poorly publicized informal practice in that regard. There is and has been much controversy as to whether it's good, fair, reasonable, appropriate. As with the responding to threats of harm essay (originally responding to threats of suicide, now expanded), there were considerable theory based top down discussions that did not resolve, followed by someone documenting what was actually being done most of the time and that settling is as precedent. This is perhaps not the best process. However, even in the absence of total community support on these issues, admins and arbcom and senior community members will act to protect individual people and the community and encyclopedia and foundation. It seems to be agreed that documenting usual parameters for that, so people understand the usual responses, was a net positive. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Sent from Kangphone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: This is really helpful. To clarify: Is it correct that each project/subdomain of Wikipedia and Wikimedia has its own, potentially unique Child Protection Policy? How many of those policies are marked as Proposed? Are the Proposed policies enforced? Are there projects/subdomains of Wikipedia and Wikimedia that have no Child Protection Policy at all? I'll follow up on the issue of harassment policy in another thread, since it seems like Child Protection Policy has been addressed specifically with its own policies. Thanks, all! ,Wil Hi Will, See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines for how policies on Wikipedia work. The Terms of Service Federico pointed at are probably different, but I don't know how different. --Martijn On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: I suppose the caveat would be that what actually happens may be *broader* than the policy suggests, if anything (eg deleting personal information on a pre-emptive basis) On the English Wikipedia, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children%27s_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents In addition to the English Wikipedia policy, note that there's versions on four other wikis, as well. Catalan notes that theirs was adaptat de l'anglesa i de Commons, so probably close in general content, and judging by the dates on them I suspect the others had a similar source, but you may want to check this. The Commons policy is at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection - also adapted from enwiki but marked as 'proposed'. There's a policy also marked as proposed on meta, dating from 2010; however, as it quotes the terms of service, I think we can reasonably conclude that the content does have the force of policy despite this tag :-) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Child_protection The Wikimedia-wide terms of use were formally codified in 2012 (there had been ToU before then, but they mostly dealt with copyright issues) and do include relevant material in Section 4. But I know this has been a topic raised on many occasions well before 2010-2012... Andrew. On 23 May 2014 18:34, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On May 23, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed? I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements. Thanks! ,Wil English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time. Risker/Anne Right. I can guarantee you that the policy more or less as written will be implemented by most senior experienced admins. It documented existing very poorly publicized informal practice in that regard. There is and has been much controversy as to whether it's good, fair, reasonable, appropriate. As with the responding to threats of harm essay (originally responding to threats of suicide, now expanded), there were considerable theory based top down discussions that did not resolve, followed by someone documenting what was actually being done most of the time and that settling is as precedent. This is perhaps not the best process. However, even in the absence of total community support on these issues, admins and arbcom and senior community members will act to protect individual people and the community and encyclopedia and foundation. It seems to be agreed that documenting usual parameters for that, so people understand the usual responses, was a net positive. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Sent from Kangphone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On 23 May 2014 19:23, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is it correct that each project/subdomain of Wikipedia and Wikimedia has its own, potentially unique Child Protection Policy? No. The meta policy at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities applies to all projects and so where a local policy may exist, it must implement the meta policy. How many of those policies are marked as Proposed? It varies by project, where they exist. Are the Proposed policies enforced? No. Some may be in effect due to the existence of prior policies and working practices, often to comply with legal requirements. Are there projects/subdomains of Wikipedia and Wikimedia that have no Child Protection Policy at all? No. The policy at meta applies across all projects. If you intend to focus discussion in one place, rather than on multiple projects, email lists and on non-wikimedia managed websites at the same time, then meta would probably be a sensible place to summarize or ask for a community consensus. As has been explained, this has been done before, and one learning point was that by having multiple channels, drama or even excitement may be created, but any potentially good ideas for improvement are *far* more likely to drain away in the sand and result in continued general dissatisfaction and frustration. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 May 2014 19:23, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Is it correct that each project/subdomain of Wikipedia and Wikimedia has its own, potentially unique Child Protection Policy? No. The meta policy at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities applies to all projects and so where a local policy may exist, it must implement the meta policy. Thanks for the link. If you intend to focus discussion in one place, rather than on multiple projects, email lists and on non-wikimedia managed websites at the same time, then meta would probably be a sensible place to summarize or ask for a community consensus. As has been explained, this has been done before, and one learning point was that by having multiple channels, drama or even excitement may be created, but any potentially good ideas for improvement are *far* more likely to drain away in the sand and result in continued general dissatisfaction and frustration. People can obviously discuss whether the policies are optimal and/or sufficient, but I'm just asking what the current policies are. Since I started the discussion here and no one seems interested in drama, it sounds like the thread should be continued here. Sorry if I didn't post to the most appropriate list; I'm a newbie. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If you intend to focus discussion in one place, rather than on multiple projects, email lists and on non-wikimedia managed websites at the same time, then meta would probably be a sensible place to summarize or ask for a community consensus. As has been explained, this has been done before, and one learning point was that by having multiple channels, drama or even excitement may be created, but any potentially good ideas for improvement are *far* more likely to drain away in the sand and result in continued general dissatisfaction and frustration. People can obviously discuss whether the policies are optimal and/or sufficient, but I'm just asking what the current policies are. Since I started the discussion here and no one seems interested in drama, it sounds like the thread should be continued here. Sorry if I didn't post to the most appropriate list; I'm a newbie. Wil, no need to apologize -- nobody accused you of doing anything wrong, just pointed out the likely consequences of certain approaches. But I do think it's very likely that, given your strong connection to the Wikimedia Foundation, your choice to engage extensively at the Wikipediaocracy site will continue to generate a great deal of interest and curiosity.You may consider yourself a newbie, but you also have higher than normal access to information about Wikimedia, and -- like it or not -- your actions will surely be received by some as providing a window into how the Wikimedia Foundation is building its understanding of its community. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
Wil, no need to apologize -- nobody accused you of doing anything wrong, just pointed out the likely consequences of certain approaches. But I do think it's very likely that, given your strong connection to the Wikimedia Foundation, your choice to engage extensively at the Wikipediaocracy site will continue to generate a great deal of interest and curiosity.You may consider yourself a newbie, but you also have higher than normal access to information about Wikimedia, and -- like it or not -- your actions will surely be received by some as providing a window into how the Wikimedia Foundation is building its understanding of its community. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc. I'd love to explain why I participate on Wikipediocracy, as well as on the Wikimedia projects. I've already explained it to the WO folks. If you guys are interested, feel free to start another thread asking me about it. It's OT for this thread, however. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On 23 May 2014 19:49, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: People can obviously discuss whether the policies are optimal and/or sufficient, but I'm just asking what the current policies are. Then stick to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk Straight What is the policy on X questions aren't really the purpose of this mailing list. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
Then stick to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk Straight What is the policy on X questions aren't really the purpose of this mailing list. -- geni Thanks for the advice; that's exactly the kind of thing a newbie like me could use. Also, thanks for the link; I'll read through that page. I've gotten a lot of great information here, so I'd prefer to keep this thread open if anyone else has anything to contribute. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Then stick to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk Straight What is the policy on X questions aren't really the purpose of this mailing list. -- geni Thanks for the advice; that's exactly the kind of thing a newbie like me could use. Also, thanks for the link; I'll read through that page. I've gotten a lot of great information here, so I'd prefer to keep this thread open if anyone else has anything to contribute. ,Wil We don't really have a process for closing threads. Any thread will always be open as long as anyone wants to contribute anything. --Martijn ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 23/05/2014 20:21, Wil Sinclair wrote: I'd love to explain why I participate on Wikipediocracy, as well as on the Wikimedia projects. I've already explained it to the WO folks. If you guys are interested, feel free to start another thread asking me about it. It's OT for this thread, however. OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy? Edward ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Apply now to participate in the Institute for Open Leadership
Earlier this week, we kicked offhttp://openpolicynetwork.org/launch-of-the-open-policy-network/the Open Policy Network http://openpolicynetwork.org/. We announced that the first project within the Network is the Institute for Open Leadershiphttp://openpolicynetwork.org/iol/. The Institute for Open Leadership is a training program to develop new leaders in education, science, public policy, and other fields on the values and implementation of openness in licensing, policies, and practices. The Institute is looking for passionate public- and private-sector professionals interested in learning more about openness and wish to develop and implement an open policy in their field. Interested applicants should review the application informationhttp://openpolicynetwork.org/iol/#applyand submit an application by *June 30, 2014*. We plan to invite about 15 fellows to participate in the first round of the Institute for Open Leadership. The in-person portion of the Institute will be held in the San Francisco bay area in January 2015 (TBD: either January 12-16 or January 19-23). Applications are open to individuals anywhere in the world. More: http://openpolicynetwork.org/apply-now-to-participate-in-the-institute-for-open-leadership/ -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy? Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask. I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard. And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in both environments. The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums. I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say? The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that everyone is free to ignore anything. ;) Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531. Maybe it would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same question to understand the greatest concerns in this community. Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere. Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that. Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am. I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to ignore me. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Its a very bold move on your part Will and it will be interesting how this develops over time. I dont participate at Wikipediocracy but I lurk regularly. Perhaps because I have some long-standing issues that no one addresses and its useful to know others have problems too. From: w...@wllm.com Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:06:32 -0700 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy? Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask. I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard. And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in both environments. The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums. I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say? The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that everyone is free to ignore anything. ;) Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531. Maybe it would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same question to understand the greatest concerns in this community. Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere. Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that. Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am. I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to ignore me. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Wil Sinclair, 24/05/2014 01:06: If you're concerned about whether I'm getting accurate information, Not really. Generally people are concerned about a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian; 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or irrelevant issues. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24 May 2014 00:24, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Not really. Generally people are concerned about a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian; 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or irrelevant issues. We're talking about a site that was founded by a failed wikispammer for the specific purpose of furthering the business of wikispamming, that continues in this aim, and that has an extensive track record of stalking and harassment. I have a hard time seeing that as a legitimate constituency. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask. I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard. And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in both environments. The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums. I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say? The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that everyone is free to ignore anything. ;) Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531. Maybe it would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same question to understand the greatest concerns in this community. Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere. Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that. Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am. I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to ignore me. I don't think you're going to find that anyone thinks you don't have a right to free speech. For historical context here: on this mailing list very very few people have ever been banned or put on moderation. It takes a huge amount of bad behavior to get moderated on Wikimedia mailing lists. The same culture persists on Wikipedia and most other Wikimedia projects. The many Wikipedia discussion spaces and the many Wikimedia mailing lists are extremely open environments where you can see people expressing a wide variety of perspectives and ideas on how to run the projects. We often get criticized for not strictly enforcing our civility guidelines/policies. Many might say we swing too far toward tolerating blatantly rude but otherwise intelligent/insightful participation. I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Not really. Generally people are concerned about a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian; 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or irrelevant issues. Nemo Hi Nemo, thanks for the feedback! RE: 2) I'm not sure what you mean by people. Has this been discussed elsewhere? I doubt that everyone on this list shares your viewpoint on these issues. Is it a particular group that you're referring to? RE: a) I haven't heard your full perspective on Wikipediocracy, and I'd like to hear more. I honestly don't know if this is the right forum to discuss it or not. Do you know of a better one? Would you rather take this offline? Generally speaking, I prefer to discuss things in forums where others can benefit. In any case, please help inform me one way or another. Talk to you soon. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the projects. Wil - the aversion to Wikipediocracy doesn't come from the mocking or trash talking. You haven't experienced the history of that site (and its predecessor) or the regular crowd there. Many of them are perfectly fine. Some of them have done some pretty seriously fucked up things, and some others have made themselves a persistent nuisance for no better reason than that they can. They have certainly exposed some major scandals, and brought insightful commentary to knotty problems. But please understand that those who choose to avoid them aren't simply too thin-skinned to take a critical comment or a bit of strong language. Lastly, standard Internet comment on free speech: Your legal right to free speech is not a protection against criticism or a limit in any other way on what others can say to or about you. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the project. Wikipediocracy is where people go to gossip and troll, particularly if they are banned and thus can't participate on Wikipedia anymore. If you're really interested in Wikipedia culture, Wikipedia is still a pretty large, rambling, and open conversation space where you can meet actual contributors. ;-) Steven Hi Steven. Yes, I'm trying to get more involved in all the projects. Frankly, there's a lot more to read and get checked off since the last time I contributed. :) Have you gone to Wikipediocracy lately? There was a thread where they asked who has been banned or indef blocked, and I believe something like 2/3 of the people who replied were editors in good standing. In fact, some of the more active users on this list and well respected members of the community are also active on WO. I'm not suggesting that people on this list should get active on WO. The trash talk is not for the faint-of-heart. I actually wish that many of the issues they discuss over there were discussed more over here; I have looked in to many of them using secondary sources (usually on WP itself), and they seem to be very valid concerns with suggestions that may help address- or at least start a discussion about- some of the biggest challenges facing WP. I can post the list of concerns (without the trash talk, of course) that we've put together on WO in this forum, if that would help you get a better idea of what is going on over there. Would you like to help me get to know more about the community? My talk page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wllm; we can talk more about newb stuff over there. Thanks! ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24 May 2014 00:06, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy? Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active wikipediocracy memeber? I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard. And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear them. You know where 4chan is I assume. The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums. I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say? The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that everyone is free to ignore anything. ;) Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text) Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very insightful people. Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. We are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by thousands of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against whatever the internet can throw at them. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP community. Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement? It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked about Child Protection Policies, for example. Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that I'm just asking what the current policies are. lack a certain credibility. Harassment Policy is another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives. Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to free speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and your government. I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't for getting to know people. It's harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In the meantime, I'll continue asking questions,some of which may be inconvenient. Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that can't be dealt with through the usual project level channels. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P So not an editor? -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the projects. Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues. I understand your point, but these happen to be the issues that I'm interested in. For example, I'm a father. I want my son to be able to use Wikipedia and all the other projects. I'm not going to paste any links to salacious content on Commons in to this thread, but suffice it to say that many parents might be concerned about some of the content that's up there now. And that's A-OK with me- I'm not down with censorship- it just means that Commons is not a site for my children. But there are solutions that don't involve censoring Commons that would make it OK for my children to participate in such a service. I'd like to discuss this stuff, and I can on WO. Is it OK to discuss it here? Wil - the aversion to Wikipediocracy doesn't come from the mocking or trash talking. You haven't experienced the history of that site (and its predecessor) or the regular crowd there. Many of them are perfectly fine. Some of them have done some pretty seriously fucked up things, and some others have made themselves a persistent nuisance for no better reason than that they can. They have certainly exposed some major scandals, and brought insightful commentary to knotty problems. But please understand that those who choose to avoid them aren't simply too thin-skinned to take a critical comment or a bit of strong language. Well, despite these past experiences, my own experience has been pretty good (- the trash talk). A lot of interesting things are brought up over there. I'm really wondering if everyone might just be more comfortable discussing them on the Wikimedia mailing list. It's the issues and constructive people on WO that I value, not the site itself. Lastly, standard Internet comment on free speech: Your legal right to free speech is not a protection against criticism or a limit in any other way on what others can say to or about you. Right. But why do you mention this? Again, I'm looking for people to help me understand what's going on here. Would you be one of those people? Thanks! ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 19 -- 21 May 2014
News and notes: Crisis over Wikimedia Germany's palace revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-21/News_and_notes Traffic report: Doodles' dawn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-21/Traffic_report Featured content: Staggering number of featured articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-21/Featured_content Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-21 https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active wikipediocracy memeber? Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the question that who asked it. You know where 4chan is I assume. No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it? Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text) I agree this is a bit confusing. I don't mean it in a legal sense- which one might well argue that's the only sense it has- but in a more social sense. I ask that if you don't like what I'm doing or saying, that you take it out on me by excising your own right to free speech by criticizing me, my actions, and my words- not on Lila through WP politics. Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. We are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by thousands of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against whatever the internet can throw at them. Yeap. It's my opinion. And I also think that Wikipedia is an amazing achievement. Congrats and thanks to all of you! Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement? Sorry, what do you mean by breath interaction? Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that I'm just asking what the current policies are. lack a certain credibility. Ah. Sorry. I was referring to the questions I asked on this list. After discussing it there, I wanted to figure out what the current policies were from the source. It was pretty hard to track down everything on WP and WM, so thanks everyone for all the links! Do you have the link to that thread? Maybe we should post it so that people can see what you're talking about. The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives. Are you saying that I should discuss it there instead? I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to free speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and your government. Sure. I may not have used the right word. My apologies. I meant, please don't hold my words and actions against Lila in any way. Feel free to hold me to them, tho. :) This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't for getting to know people. Ah. I guess I'll look for other places to get to know people. I'm really sorry to have bothered you here. Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that can't be dealt with through the usual project level channels. Yeah. It sounds like I really just barged in to the wrong place. Doh! So not an editor? Actually, I'm editing some. I'm about to publish an article about the modular sofa in the WMF office. It happens to be among my favorite furniture designs, and now I've got a great pic to use in the article. In addition, I plan to add some audio loops that I have made over the years doing electronic music to Commons. It would be really cool for people to have completely free loops to use in applications like Garage Band and FL Studio. Stay tuned! I guess I'll see y'all around somewhere else. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Well, Wil, I caught your early posts there and was of the impression you joined to protect the privacy of a member of your family. And out of respect for that I declined to ask the question you seemed to be begging to be asked. You wouldn't be the first Wikimedian who felt that was a necessary action. Risker On 23 May 2014 21:36, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active wikipediocracy memeber? Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the question that who asked it. You know where 4chan is I assume. No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it? Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text) I agree this is a bit confusing. I don't mean it in a legal sense- which one might well argue that's the only sense it has- but in a more social sense. I ask that if you don't like what I'm doing or saying, that you take it out on me by excising your own right to free speech by criticizing me, my actions, and my words- not on Lila through WP politics. Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. We are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by thousands of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against whatever the internet can throw at them. Yeap. It's my opinion. And I also think that Wikipedia is an amazing achievement. Congrats and thanks to all of you! Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement? Sorry, what do you mean by breath interaction? Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that I'm just asking what the current policies are. lack a certain credibility. Ah. Sorry. I was referring to the questions I asked on this list. After discussing it there, I wanted to figure out what the current policies were from the source. It was pretty hard to track down everything on WP and WM, so thanks everyone for all the links! Do you have the link to that thread? Maybe we should post it so that people can see what you're talking about. The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives. Are you saying that I should discuss it there instead? I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to free speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and your government. Sure. I may not have used the right word. My apologies. I meant, please don't hold my words and actions against Lila in any way. Feel free to hold me to them, tho. :) This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't for getting to know people. Ah. I guess I'll look for other places to get to know people. I'm really sorry to have bothered you here. Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that can't be dealt with through the usual project level channels. Yeah. It sounds like I really just barged in to the wrong place. Doh! So not an editor? Actually, I'm editing some. I'm about to publish an article about the modular sofa in the WMF office. It happens to be among my favorite furniture designs, and now I've got a great pic to use in the article. In addition, I plan to add some audio loops that I have made over the years doing electronic music to Commons. It would be really cool for people to have completely free loops to use in applications like Garage Band and FL Studio. Stay tuned! I guess I'll see y'all around somewhere else. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Wil Sinclair wrote: I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the projects. Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues. Hi. From the interactions I've observed, you (Wil) are too smart to be doing what you're doing, which makes some of your behavior all the more worrying. You're willfully ignoring the consequences (real and potential) of your actions. I'm worried about what it says when you have 18 posts to wikimedia-l this month and your partner has one. I'm not even sure she's subscribed to this mailing list, a big official forum, much less registered and actively posting in forums such as Wikipediocracy. But you are. Even if you had no connection to Lila, what would you or anyone else around here think about a contributor who suddenly starts wanting to get involved and is immediately posting to Wikipediocracy and poking around child protection issues (one of the most sensitive issues in the community)? People are obviously going to be wary of someone like this. Wikimedia is about creating free educational content. I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wllm and I see you have fewer than 50 edits to articles, and the last two are (minor) edits to your partner's article. I'm pretty worried about what that says. I'm not sure you're someone who wants to be involved in Wikimedia. Not yet, anyway. There's a concern that you're simply someone whose partner just got a job as the head of the Wikimedia Foundation and you want to dig into the drama and other juicy parts. There's a concern that you're not here to contribute Wiktionary entries or Wikisource transcriptions or Wikipedia articles or other free educational content. Or perhaps put another way, you have 110 posts to Wikipediocracy and you've been registered there since May 2014. Meanwhile you have 79 total edits to the English Wikipedia and you've been registered there since July 2006. This is absolutely not a means of wiki-dick measuring or editcountitis, I'm just looking at what you've been saying versus what you've been doing and how it might affect both perceptions and the future reality. These issues are swirling around in my head. Wikimedia is unusual, I realize, but nowadays every time I hear about someone's partner getting (overly) involved in that someone's work, I can't help but think of both GitHub and its recent issues (real-life) and the relationship on House of Cards (fiction). Real life and popular culture have their influence on us, of course. :-) Both of these (GitHub + House of Cards) are obviously very extreme examples, but given your (Wil) recent hyper-involvement, the juxtaposition of it with your partner's lack of involvement, your on-wiki track record (few substantive edits or involvement... and you've been editing your partner's article?), and your off-wiki track record (Wikipediocracy and here), I can't help but wonder what your role is here. I'm not sure the Wikimedia Foundation has ever had or ever should have a consort. Are you acting as a surrogate for your partner in forums that she doesn't have time or inclination to participate in herself? Is this a good cop/bad cop type of situation? I'm still not sure what to think. I imagine there members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees that also still aren't sure what to think. I hope the Board is paying close attention. You seem to be fairly self-aware and proactive about combating the notion that you have any influence over the Wikimedia Foundation, while simultaneously wishing (I'm a father and I want my kid...) to someday make big changes to Wikimedia and its policies. It's a mixed bag around here. It's very difficult to tell if you'll be a blessing or a curse. I've read your replies and I understand what you're saying (succinctly summarized by you as ,Wil!=LilaWil!=WMF), but what you're saying and what your actions are saying seem to be in contrast. If you want to get involved with Wikimedia, by all means, that would be great. But getting involved means contributing to free educational content and the surrounding movement. All you have to do is be bold and just click edit, as they say. Until then, there will be a sizable contingency watching and waiting for what will come of the decision to appoint your partner as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation and what her role and yours mean to the future of Wikimedia. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 05/23/2014 07:06 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard. I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has held one of the most public position of authority on the English Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some day). Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects. On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the movement's gaffes. This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to keep an ear to the ground as it were. The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their investigations is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in the projects. (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of private boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on those sites). The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation, concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect you. Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but that's a side effect of their effort to dig up dirt to throw at their enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach mainstream venues soon enough if it was legitimate. So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a very bad idea. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has held one of the most public position of authority on the English Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some day). Thanks. I appreciate any advice. Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects. On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the movement's gaffes. I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd like to find out as much as I can about the movement. This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to keep an ear to the ground as it were. The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their investigations is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in the projects. Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution, but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there, too, for the reasons you've mentioned above. (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of private boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on those sites). Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the members further questions about potential threats to my family once Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have you ever been on those boards? The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation, concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect you. Well, we'll have to see how I fare. It certainly hasn't bothered me so far. For that matter, some of the less-than-friendly responses on this list haven't bothered me either. I've been told many times that I'm persistently positive. ;) Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but that's a side effect of their effort to dig up dirt to throw at their enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach mainstream venues soon enough if it was legitimate. But what if this problem weren't discovered and fixed? Couldn't it turn in to a larger problem down the road? If we all work on our problems in good faith, a few inevitable mistakes like we've seen in the past won't matter; the positive news should far outweigh the negative. So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a very bad idea. -- Marc Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to participate there, because it happens to work for me. I realize it's not for everyone. For example, with all the trash talking on there, it certainly isn't for Lila. As I've mentioned, we are two *very*
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
From the interactions I've observed, you (Wil) are too smart to be doing what you're doing, which makes some of your behavior all the more worrying. Thanks! You're willfully ignoring the consequences (real and potential) of your actions. I'm worried about what it says when you have 18 posts to wikimedia-l this month and your partner has one. I'm not even sure she's subscribed to this mailing list, a big official forum, much less registered and actively posting in forums such as Wikipediocracy. But you are. You should ask Lila directly about her participation here. I'm sure she'd love to here from you. Even if you had no connection to Lila, what would you or anyone else around here think about a contributor who suddenly starts wanting to get involved and is immediately posting to Wikipediocracy and poking around child protection issues (one of the most sensitive issues in the community)? People are obviously going to be wary of someone like this. I'm sure some people will be. I think that some other people may also welcome a perspective that isn't political. I've heard from many people in the WP community, both on this list and off, who tell me that they have been following what I've been saying on WO and here and appreciate what I'm doing. For some reason, they don't feel that their perspectives would be welcome here or on some other WP forums. :( Now that's something I think we can all agree is a problem worth fixing. Wikimedia is about creating free educational content. I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wllm and I see you have fewer than 50 edits to articles, and the last two are (minor) edits to your partner's article. I'm pretty worried about what that says. Yeap. I got the business from the Wikipediocracy guys on that, too. If you'll look at the edits, one was to fix a grammatical mistake and the other changed Lila's art major to the correct name. Immediately after committing I realized that this probably wasn't kosher, so you'll see a comment from me in the talk page asking if I should revert them. I learned that it was better to give information on the talk page and let other people edit that don't have a COI as they see fit. But I should have checked the COI policy first, and I've since read through it. I apologize to the entire community for that. I will try to do better. I'm not sure you're someone who wants to be involved in Wikimedia. Not yet, anyway. There's a concern that you're simply someone whose partner just got a job as the head of the Wikimedia Foundation and you want to dig into the drama and other juicy parts. There's a concern that you're not here to contribute Wiktionary entries or Wikisource transcriptions or Wikipedia articles or other free educational content. Or perhaps put another way, you have 110 posts to Wikipediocracy and you've been registered there since May 2014. Meanwhile you have 79 total edits to the English Wikipedia and you've been registered there since July 2006. This is absolutely not a means of wiki-dick measuring or editcountitis, I'm just looking at what you've been saying versus what you've been doing and how it might affect both perceptions and the future reality. When you say a concern, do you mean a concern that you have or that someone else has? It's no biggie, but I think it's nice to know whom I'm addressing when I reply to questions. But answer I will, regardless. :) Of course I got more interested in Wikipedia with Lila's appointment. Right now I'll be focussing on Commons for a bit, because the sounds library has so much potential. I'm not really sure if you're comparing the number of Wikipediocracy posts to Wikipedia edits, but they are two very different sites. But as I get more involved here and on the wiki, you'll probably see that post count go up. Let me know if I'm not meeting an mission-critical KPI, tho. ;) These issues are swirling around in my head. Wikimedia is unusual, I realize, but nowadays every time I hear about someone's partner getting (overly) involved in that someone's work, I can't help but think of both GitHub and its recent issues (real-life) and the relationship on House of Cards (fiction). Real life and popular culture have their influence on us, of course. :-) I don't know anything about House of Cards. I'm happy to say that there is more attention being paid across Silicon Valley to making more welcoming and comfortable environments for women in technology. I'm sure the WP community has been considering some of the same issues for WP itself. Both of these (GitHub + House of Cards) are obviously very extreme examples, but given your (Wil) recent hyper-involvement, the juxtaposition of it with your partner's lack of involvement, your on-wiki track record (few substantive edits or involvement... and you've been editing your partner's article?), and your off-wiki track record (Wikipediocracy and here), I can't help but wonder what your role is
