Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Gnangarra]

Institutional memory and Institutional knowledge are two subtle and unique
characteristics, sharing knowledge is what we are supposed to be good at
yet internally its our biggest weakness.  The WMF would do well to have a
"historian" on staff to document and maintain our movements' history.
Internally it is the responsibility of the human resources department to
ensure that the knowledge required and collected in any position is
captured and then transferred appropriately as people and positions change.

One issue we have is that a very significant amount of our Institution
knowledge is held by volunteers that knowledge is held closely as it builds
their reputation while creating a power base that gives them leverage for
special opportunities.  Its difficult to get volunteers to willingly hand
over knowledge that makes them special and able to stand out. Part of that
is ensuring that at least WMF staff are able to connect directly with a
wider selection of the community at events, and why its so important that
conduits of knowledge are broadly dispersed beyond just these gatekeepers.



On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 09:11, Michael Snow  wrote:

> On 8/25/2020 4:34 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped
> working
> > at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering:
> >
> > 5. The Wikimedia Foundation has not historically done very much in
> terms
> > of thorough encyclopedic documentation of important events in its
> history.
> > There have been exceptions, and I believe that where it has been
> done and
> > done well, much good has come of it. The best example of this, in my
> > opinion, is the Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence
> > program
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program
> >.
> > This was initiated by then-Executive Director Sue Gardner and her
> deputy
> > Erik Möller, who participated actively in it. Specific programmatic
> > improvements in the Grants department were a direct outcome.
> >
> > 11. In closing, I'd like to make a point about the skillset the WMF
> > board has hired. I want to be really explicit -- I like and admire
> the
> > WMF's Executive Director/CEO; she is highly skilled, and a kind
> person. But
> > I am continually surprised that there has been little acknowledgment
> of
> > what the board did by hiring her, and the direction the WMF has
> > (unsurprisingly) taken since her hire. She was previously the WMF's
> > Communications Director, and her earlier career was largely in
> > communications. I would urge others to consider that it is not
> surprising,
> > if an organization is guided by an executive with a Communications
> > background, that it would not embrace an encyclopedic approach to
> its own
> > self-knowledge.
>
> I want to react to a couple of Pete's points here. First, as to the
> closing point, I think it overrates the effect of the individual
> Executive Director/CEO on what are, after all, institutional and
> collective processes. While I recognize the importance of the role in
> heading the organization, that person may try to shape the overall
> culture, but they are not really the source of it. Just consider what
> transpired between the two Executive Directors mentioned above; while
> that was a difficult time and the organizational culture suffered
> significantly, I would argue that the underlying culture at the
> community/staff/"grassroots" level is what forced the organization to
> reconsider and change directions. Organizational culture determines how
> institutional memory is transmitted, and simultaneously that memory
> becomes part of the culture and shapes it.
>
> Pete also offers much good advice about maintaining institutional
> knowledge, but I think it's a mistaken dichotomy to view two different
> modes of presenting information ("encyclopedic" and "communications") as
> if they are conflicting philosophies rather than merely separate
> skillsets. People can have both, or value both even when their personal
> skills are stronger in one or the other. To the extent the Wikimedia
> Foundation struggles to have an encyclopedic approach to institutional
> memory, frankly that problem is nearly universal among organizations.
> It's less the background of a particular leader than the general
> emphasis on "getting things done" over documenting what was done, how,
> and why.
>
> Going back to the earlier point, it's good to recognize Sue and Erik's
> leadership in an assessment that can serve as a positive model. With
> respect to encouraging a more "encyclopedic" approach, I think it's
> worth observing that from a conventional organizational leadership
> perspective, Erik was a pretty nontraditional choice for the deputy role
> (and even a sometimes controversial figure within the community).
> Nevertheless, he and Sue made an 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Michael Snow]

On 8/25/2020 4:34 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped working
at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering:

5. The Wikimedia Foundation has not historically done very much in terms
of thorough encyclopedic documentation of important events in its history.
There have been exceptions, and I believe that where it has been done and
done well, much good has come of it. The best example of this, in my
opinion, is the Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence
program

.
This was initiated by then-Executive Director Sue Gardner and her deputy
Erik Möller, who participated actively in it. Specific programmatic
improvements in the Grants department were a direct outcome.

11. In closing, I'd like to make a point about the skillset the WMF

board has hired. I want to be really explicit -- I like and admire the
WMF's Executive Director/CEO; she is highly skilled, and a kind person. But
I am continually surprised that there has been little acknowledgment of
what the board did by hiring her, and the direction the WMF has
(unsurprisingly) taken since her hire. She was previously the WMF's
Communications Director, and her earlier career was largely in
communications. I would urge others to consider that it is not surprising,
if an organization is guided by an executive with a Communications
background, that it would not embrace an encyclopedic approach to its own
self-knowledge.


I want to react to a couple of Pete's points here. First, as to the 
closing point, I think it overrates the effect of the individual 
Executive Director/CEO on what are, after all, institutional and 
collective processes. While I recognize the importance of the role in 
heading the organization, that person may try to shape the overall 
culture, but they are not really the source of it. Just consider what 
transpired between the two Executive Directors mentioned above; while 
that was a difficult time and the organizational culture suffered 
significantly, I would argue that the underlying culture at the 
community/staff/"grassroots" level is what forced the organization to 
reconsider and change directions. Organizational culture determines how 
institutional memory is transmitted, and simultaneously that memory 
becomes part of the culture and shapes it.


Pete also offers much good advice about maintaining institutional 
knowledge, but I think it's a mistaken dichotomy to view two different 
modes of presenting information ("encyclopedic" and "communications") as 
if they are conflicting philosophies rather than merely separate 
skillsets. People can have both, or value both even when their personal 
skills are stronger in one or the other. To the extent the Wikimedia 
Foundation struggles to have an encyclopedic approach to institutional 
memory, frankly that problem is nearly universal among organizations. 
It's less the background of a particular leader than the general 
emphasis on "getting things done" over documenting what was done, how, 
and why.


Going back to the earlier point, it's good to recognize Sue and Erik's 
leadership in an assessment that can serve as a positive model. With 
respect to encouraging a more "encyclopedic" approach, I think it's 
worth observing that from a conventional organizational leadership 
perspective, Erik was a pretty nontraditional choice for the deputy role 
(and even a sometimes controversial figure within the community). 
Nevertheless, he and Sue made an excellent pairing in their roles, and 
he was an important part of ensuring that the organization understood 
and valued the community, its culture, and the "encyclopedic" approach. 
I believe this illustrates why it's important for the Wikimedia 
Foundation to continue valuing experience in the community for all of 
its hiring, so that the staff can maintain a culture that stays in sync 
with the movement. It's less about one or two specific leadership 
positions, and more that every Wikimedia ED/CEO needs to surround 
themselves with a variety of people who bring different pieces of 
institutional memory with them.


--Michael Snow


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Philippe Beaudette]

Credit for that goes to the inestimable Eugene Eric Kim and the hundreds of 
Wikimedians who contributed to it. It still exists I believe, at 
strategy.wikimedia.org. 

Regards,
pb 

Philippe Beaudette
philippe.beaude...@icloud.com


> On Aug 25, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Philippe. Funny, the minute I hit "send" I thought of you -- I don't
> know whether or not it was your idea originally, but the "Wikimedia-Pedia"
> that was created during the 2010 Strategic Planning process was probably
> the closest thing I've seen to an organized effort to do this.
> 
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 5:25 PM Philippe Beaudette 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Pete, one thing that I loved about my time at reddit was the existence of
>> a subreddit called “r/museumofreddit”. It was mandatory reading for every
>> new hire on my team and every other team I could convince and it was
>> critical to onboarding me.
>> 
>> It lived to serve just the documentary process that you mention.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> pb
>> 
>> Philippe Beaudette
>> 
 On Aug 25, 2020, at 6:35 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped
>> working
>>> at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering:
>>> 
>>>  1. Often, institutional memory is measured in terms of
>>>  staff/executive/board turnover; while there has indeed been a very high
>>>  rate of turnover at times, I would argue that another factor (see #2)
>> is
>>>  actually more important.
>>>  2. An organization can do a great deal, with a well-planned top-down
>>>  approach, to ensure institutional memory is *generated* and *retained*
>> even
>>>  if there's a lot of turnover.
>>>  3. The main thing that can be done is to ensure that significant events
>>>  are *debriefed and summarized *("documented") in a way that is clearly
>>>  and concisely articulated, supported by evidence and logic, and fair to
>>>  various good faith perspectives.
>>>  4. We might call that an "encyclopedic" approach. (The skills required
>>>  are almost exactly the skills that tend to be cultivated in our
>> Wikipedia
>>>  volunteer community, as codified in its policies and norms, and learned
>>>  through practice by its core volunteers.)
>>>  5. The Wikimedia Foundation has not historically done very much in
>> terms
>>>  of thorough encyclopedic documentation of important events in its
>> history.
>>>  There have been exceptions, and I believe that where it has been done
>> and
>>>  done well, much good has come of it. The best example of this, in my
>>>  opinion, is the Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence
>>>  program
>>>  <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program
>>> .
>>>  This was initiated by then-Executive Director Sue Gardner and her
>> deputy
>>>  Erik Möller, who participated actively in it. Specific programmatic
>>>  improvements in the Grants department were a direct outcome.
>>>  6. But many events have never been documented with
>>>  guidance/resourcing/participation by the WMF. It's worthwhile to
>> debrief
>>>  and summarize both positive and negative experiences.
>>>  7. If you don't document positive outcomes, WMF staff may have
>>>  difficulty replicating that success, because the experience is not
>> widely
>>>  understood within the WMF (or in the community, etc.) The example
>> foremost
>>>  in my mind is the 2012 rewrite of the Terms of Use, overseen by
>>>  then-General Counsel Geoff Brigham. He made changes to his process to
>>>  leverage the knowledge and experience within the volunteer community,
>> and
>>>  ended up with a document substantially superior to his initial draft,
>> and
>>>  that also had the buy-in of many volunteers whose fingerprints were on
>> the
>>>  final document. (I hope to write this up myself some day; if I ever get
>>>  around to it, it'll be linked here
>>>  <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/governance#Organizational_governance
>>> 
>>>  .
>>>  8. If you don't summarize/debrief negative outcomes, you don't learn in
>>>  the moment what went wrong (so as to avoid repeating the mistakes),
>> and you
>>>  leave anybody impacted by the problems (e.g. volunteers) with the
>>>  impression that you don't care. The example I think of is Superprotect
>>>  . As the author of a
>>>  diplomatic letter, signed by more than 1000 people, making
>> straightforward
>>>  requests of the WMF, I am not too bothered that they didn't do what we
>>>  requested; but I am very bothered that they never acknowledged the
>>>  existence of the letter, nor stated which parts of it they
>> agreed/disagreed
>>>  with, or what motivated the subsequent decisions they did make. (These
>> are
>>>  things they could still do, even several years later, that would still
>> make
>>>  a difference.)
>>>  9. As any seasoned Wikipedia writer/editor knows, there 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Pete Forsyth]

Thanks Philippe. Funny, the minute I hit "send" I thought of you -- I don't
know whether or not it was your idea originally, but the "Wikimedia-Pedia"
that was created during the 2010 Strategic Planning process was probably
the closest thing I've seen to an organized effort to do this.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 5:25 PM Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> Pete, one thing that I loved about my time at reddit was the existence of
> a subreddit called “r/museumofreddit”. It was mandatory reading for every
> new hire on my team and every other team I could convince and it was
> critical to onboarding me.
>
> It lived to serve just the documentary process that you mention.
>
> Regards,
> pb
>
> Philippe Beaudette
>
> > On Aug 25, 2020, at 6:35 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped
> working
> > at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering:
> >
> >   1. Often, institutional memory is measured in terms of
> >   staff/executive/board turnover; while there has indeed been a very high
> >   rate of turnover at times, I would argue that another factor (see #2)
> is
> >   actually more important.
> >   2. An organization can do a great deal, with a well-planned top-down
> >   approach, to ensure institutional memory is *generated* and *retained*
> even
> >   if there's a lot of turnover.
> >   3. The main thing that can be done is to ensure that significant events
> >   are *debriefed and summarized *("documented") in a way that is clearly
> >   and concisely articulated, supported by evidence and logic, and fair to
> >   various good faith perspectives.
> >   4. We might call that an "encyclopedic" approach. (The skills required
> >   are almost exactly the skills that tend to be cultivated in our
> Wikipedia
> >   volunteer community, as codified in its policies and norms, and learned
> >   through practice by its core volunteers.)
> >   5. The Wikimedia Foundation has not historically done very much in
> terms
> >   of thorough encyclopedic documentation of important events in its
> history.
> >   There have been exceptions, and I believe that where it has been done
> and
> >   done well, much good has come of it. The best example of this, in my
> >   opinion, is the Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence
> >   program
> >   <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program
> >.
> >   This was initiated by then-Executive Director Sue Gardner and her
> deputy
> >   Erik Möller, who participated actively in it. Specific programmatic
> >   improvements in the Grants department were a direct outcome.
> >   6. But many events have never been documented with
> >   guidance/resourcing/participation by the WMF. It's worthwhile to
> debrief
> >   and summarize both positive and negative experiences.
> >   7. If you don't document positive outcomes, WMF staff may have
> >   difficulty replicating that success, because the experience is not
> widely
> >   understood within the WMF (or in the community, etc.) The example
> foremost
> >   in my mind is the 2012 rewrite of the Terms of Use, overseen by
> >   then-General Counsel Geoff Brigham. He made changes to his process to
> >   leverage the knowledge and experience within the volunteer community,
> and
> >   ended up with a document substantially superior to his initial draft,
> and
> >   that also had the buy-in of many volunteers whose fingerprints were on
> the
> >   final document. (I hope to write this up myself some day; if I ever get
> >   around to it, it'll be linked here
> >   <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/governance#Organizational_governance
> >
> >   .
> >   8. If you don't summarize/debrief negative outcomes, you don't learn in
> >   the moment what went wrong (so as to avoid repeating the mistakes),
> and you
> >   leave anybody impacted by the problems (e.g. volunteers) with the
> >   impression that you don't care. The example I think of is Superprotect
> >   . As the author of a
> >   diplomatic letter, signed by more than 1000 people, making
> straightforward
> >   requests of the WMF, I am not too bothered that they didn't do what we
> >   requested; but I am very bothered that they never acknowledged the
> >   existence of the letter, nor stated which parts of it they
> agreed/disagreed
> >   with, or what motivated the subsequent decisions they did make. (These
> are
> >   things they could still do, even several years later, that would still
> make
> >   a difference.)
> >   9. As any seasoned Wikipedia writer/editor knows, there is an important
> >   difference between writing that aims first and foremost to be useful
> and
> >   informative ("encyclopedic"), vs. writing that aims first and foremost
> to
> >   present an organization in a good light, or to advance an agenda
> ("public
> >   relations" or "communications" for an 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Philippe Beaudette]

Pete, one thing that I loved about my time at reddit was the existence of a 
subreddit called “r/museumofreddit”. It was mandatory reading for every new 
hire on my team and every other team I could convince and it was critical to 
onboarding me. 

It lived to serve just the documentary process that you mention.

Regards,
pb 

Philippe Beaudette

> On Aug 25, 2020, at 6:35 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> 
> I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped working
> at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering:
> 
>   1. Often, institutional memory is measured in terms of
>   staff/executive/board turnover; while there has indeed been a very high
>   rate of turnover at times, I would argue that another factor (see #2) is
>   actually more important.
>   2. An organization can do a great deal, with a well-planned top-down
>   approach, to ensure institutional memory is *generated* and *retained* even
>   if there's a lot of turnover.
>   3. The main thing that can be done is to ensure that significant events
>   are *debriefed and summarized *("documented") in a way that is clearly
>   and concisely articulated, supported by evidence and logic, and fair to
>   various good faith perspectives.
>   4. We might call that an "encyclopedic" approach. (The skills required
>   are almost exactly the skills that tend to be cultivated in our Wikipedia
>   volunteer community, as codified in its policies and norms, and learned
>   through practice by its core volunteers.)
>   5. The Wikimedia Foundation has not historically done very much in terms
>   of thorough encyclopedic documentation of important events in its history.
>   There have been exceptions, and I believe that where it has been done and
>   done well, much good has come of it. The best example of this, in my
>   opinion, is the Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence
>   program
>   
> .
>   This was initiated by then-Executive Director Sue Gardner and her deputy
>   Erik Möller, who participated actively in it. Specific programmatic
>   improvements in the Grants department were a direct outcome.
>   6. But many events have never been documented with
>   guidance/resourcing/participation by the WMF. It's worthwhile to debrief
>   and summarize both positive and negative experiences.
>   7. If you don't document positive outcomes, WMF staff may have
>   difficulty replicating that success, because the experience is not widely
>   understood within the WMF (or in the community, etc.) The example foremost
>   in my mind is the 2012 rewrite of the Terms of Use, overseen by
>   then-General Counsel Geoff Brigham. He made changes to his process to
>   leverage the knowledge and experience within the volunteer community, and
>   ended up with a document substantially superior to his initial draft, and
>   that also had the buy-in of many volunteers whose fingerprints were on the
>   final document. (I hope to write this up myself some day; if I ever get
>   around to it, it'll be linked here
>   
> 
>   .
>   8. If you don't summarize/debrief negative outcomes, you don't learn in
>   the moment what went wrong (so as to avoid repeating the mistakes), and you
>   leave anybody impacted by the problems (e.g. volunteers) with the
>   impression that you don't care. The example I think of is Superprotect
>   . As the author of a
>   diplomatic letter, signed by more than 1000 people, making straightforward
>   requests of the WMF, I am not too bothered that they didn't do what we
>   requested; but I am very bothered that they never acknowledged the
>   existence of the letter, nor stated which parts of it they agreed/disagreed
>   with, or what motivated the subsequent decisions they did make. (These are
>   things they could still do, even several years later, that would still make
>   a difference.)
>   9. As any seasoned Wikipedia writer/editor knows, there is an important
>   difference between writing that aims first and foremost to be useful and
>   informative ("encyclopedic"), vs. writing that aims first and foremost to
>   present an organization in a good light, or to advance an agenda ("public
>   relations" or "communications" for an organization). People who excel at
>   one of those types of writing are not always great at doing the other kind;
>   the two types of writing require a different mindset.
>   10. The kind of writing required to summarize and debrief
>   important events, to create and preserve institutional memory, is (in terms
>   of the ways I defined them above) *encyclopedic* writing.
>   11. In closing, I'd like to make a point about the skillset the WMF
>   board has hired. I want to be really explicit -- I like and admire the
>   WMF's Executive Director/CEO; she 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Pete Forsyth]

I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped working
at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering:

   1. Often, institutional memory is measured in terms of
   staff/executive/board turnover; while there has indeed been a very high
   rate of turnover at times, I would argue that another factor (see #2) is
   actually more important.
   2. An organization can do a great deal, with a well-planned top-down
   approach, to ensure institutional memory is *generated* and *retained* even
   if there's a lot of turnover.
   3. The main thing that can be done is to ensure that significant events
   are *debriefed and summarized *("documented") in a way that is clearly
   and concisely articulated, supported by evidence and logic, and fair to
   various good faith perspectives.
   4. We might call that an "encyclopedic" approach. (The skills required
   are almost exactly the skills that tend to be cultivated in our Wikipedia
   volunteer community, as codified in its policies and norms, and learned
   through practice by its core volunteers.)
   5. The Wikimedia Foundation has not historically done very much in terms
   of thorough encyclopedic documentation of important events in its history.
   There have been exceptions, and I believe that where it has been done and
   done well, much good has come of it. The best example of this, in my
   opinion, is the Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence
   program
   
.
   This was initiated by then-Executive Director Sue Gardner and her deputy
   Erik Möller, who participated actively in it. Specific programmatic
   improvements in the Grants department were a direct outcome.
   6. But many events have never been documented with
   guidance/resourcing/participation by the WMF. It's worthwhile to debrief
   and summarize both positive and negative experiences.
   7. If you don't document positive outcomes, WMF staff may have
   difficulty replicating that success, because the experience is not widely
   understood within the WMF (or in the community, etc.) The example foremost
   in my mind is the 2012 rewrite of the Terms of Use, overseen by
   then-General Counsel Geoff Brigham. He made changes to his process to
   leverage the knowledge and experience within the volunteer community, and
   ended up with a document substantially superior to his initial draft, and
   that also had the buy-in of many volunteers whose fingerprints were on the
   final document. (I hope to write this up myself some day; if I ever get
   around to it, it'll be linked here
   

   .
   8. If you don't summarize/debrief negative outcomes, you don't learn in
   the moment what went wrong (so as to avoid repeating the mistakes), and you
   leave anybody impacted by the problems (e.g. volunteers) with the
   impression that you don't care. The example I think of is Superprotect
   . As the author of a
   diplomatic letter, signed by more than 1000 people, making straightforward
   requests of the WMF, I am not too bothered that they didn't do what we
   requested; but I am very bothered that they never acknowledged the
   existence of the letter, nor stated which parts of it they agreed/disagreed
   with, or what motivated the subsequent decisions they did make. (These are
   things they could still do, even several years later, that would still make
   a difference.)
   9. As any seasoned Wikipedia writer/editor knows, there is an important
   difference between writing that aims first and foremost to be useful and
   informative ("encyclopedic"), vs. writing that aims first and foremost to
   present an organization in a good light, or to advance an agenda ("public
   relations" or "communications" for an organization). People who excel at
   one of those types of writing are not always great at doing the other kind;
   the two types of writing require a different mindset.
   10. The kind of writing required to summarize and debrief
   important events, to create and preserve institutional memory, is (in terms
   of the ways I defined them above) *encyclopedic* writing.
   11. In closing, I'd like to make a point about the skillset the WMF
   board has hired. I want to be really explicit -- I like and admire the
   WMF's Executive Director/CEO; she is highly skilled, and a kind person. But
   I am continually surprised that there has been little acknowledgment of
   what the board did by hiring her, and the direction the WMF has
   (unsurprisingly) taken since her hire. She was previously the WMF's
   Communications Director, and her earlier career was largely in
   communications. I would urge others to consider that it is not surprising,
   if an organization is guided by an executive with a Communications
   

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop Improvements coming to Vector

[Aron Manning]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 22:36, Strainu  wrote:

> 1. Why bundle the changes? The collapsible toolbar could be a useful
> feature in itself, even for those who are firmly against the
> narrow-down content area. It could also be the basis for more radical
> changes, such as a "no distraction mode".
>

Do you mean these should be individual opt-in options, so every editor can
customize their preferred version?
I like that idea, I think it would make community acceptance much easier.
However, for readers (unregistered users) the developer team has
difficulties enabling to customize their experience, so the majority of the
users (readers) would probably see a default version, bringing us back to
the question: what that default should be.

2. Why change Vector rather than creating a new skin or starting from
> a 3-column skin such as Timeless? I assume it has more to do with
> community dynamics than technical reasons...
>

I've had the same two questions before the project started (Build upon
Timeless

).
The technical reason would be that Timeless isn't targeting old browsers
that's supported by the WMF and accessibility is not a primary concern.
Both of these could be rectified easily, however.
The actual reason seems to be that Timeless was never considered, as that
is a "volunteer" skin, not an official one. This strict distinction between
official and volunteer solutions is a cultural constraint that makes it
impossible to fully realize the developer community's potential IMHO.

The reason to not create a new skin is not documented. The few comments
suggest the developers felt this will be easier to manage and to keep the
common parts in sync. Initially that was true, but by now Vector became two
skins in one, a significant part of the code being duplicated. Furthermore,
this complicates the task of gadget and user style creators, which was not
taken into consideration. In any case, either making a new skin or making
two skins in one has their own, different difficulties that would be close
in a comparison, but in the long run it would be cleaner to have them
separately.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:00, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed! The FINAL stage of the changes is deeply conservative and not a
> change at all. It's a small lifting, but not a real change. We are now 10
> years old, and with the new changes we will be 8 years old in a year,
> instead of being 11 years old.
>

I'd say the final stage will be 5 years old, other than that our estimates
are quite close :-D
Still, it's a very much needed facelift and the design is a good balance
IMHO.


Aron (Demian)
http://demian-demo.epizy.com/wiki/Desktop_Improvements_volunteer_demo  -
most of the project implemented
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Strainu]

În mie., 26 aug. 2020 la 00:03, Amir Sarabadani  a scris:
>
> Hey,
> Can you elaborate what happened? if It's public of course. It's hard to
> understand the problem without proper context.

The edits are public, but I don't really want to be specific, as that
would likely derail the discussion.

The pattern I'm seeing is: team gets a big project (in this case UCoC)
-> team hires -> newbie makes good faith edits that are known to cause
offense to some members of the community. This pattern can be broken
only if the organization has a process to teach newcomers things that
seem obvious to old timers ("don't go over community decisions if you
can avoid it", "don't change content", "try to talk to people before
doing a major change", "not everyone speaks English", "affiliates are
not the community" etc.)

My question is: does the WMF has such a process?

>
> Is it https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261133 ?
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:52 PM Strainu  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional
> > memory, with the T team taking center stage. It's not really
> > important what they did wrong, it's minor compared with other faux-pas
> > they did in the past.
> >
> > I was wondering though if the organization as a whole has learned
> > anything from major crisis in the past and if there is a formal way of
> > passing to newcomers information such as when and how to contact
> > communities, what's the difference between a wiki, a community and an
> > affiliate etc.?
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
> --
> Amir (he/him)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

No, not related in the least.
He's probably talking about a recent situation discussed at this ML where a
WMF employee at T emergency role directed someone complaining of
harassment to the AN/I because they thought it was the appropriate venue.

Amir Sarabadani  escreveu no dia terça, 25/08/2020
à(s) 22:03:

> Hey,
> Can you elaborate what happened? if It's public of course. It's hard to
> understand the problem without proper context.
>
> Is it https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261133 ?
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:52 PM Strainu  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional
> > memory, with the T team taking center stage. It's not really
> > important what they did wrong, it's minor compared with other faux-pas
> > they did in the past.
> >
> > I was wondering though if the organization as a whole has learned
> > anything from major crisis in the past and if there is a formal way of
> > passing to newcomers information such as when and how to contact
> > communities, what's the difference between a wiki, a community and an
> > affiliate etc.?
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
> --
> Amir (he/him)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Amir Sarabadani]

Hey,
Can you elaborate what happened? if It's public of course. It's hard to
understand the problem without proper context.

Is it https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261133 ?

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:52 PM Strainu  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional
> memory, with the T team taking center stage. It's not really
> important what they did wrong, it's minor compared with other faux-pas
> they did in the past.
>
> I was wondering though if the organization as a whole has learned
> anything from major crisis in the past and if there is a formal way of
> passing to newcomers information such as when and how to contact
> communities, what's the difference between a wiki, a community and an
> affiliate etc.?
>
> Strainu
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>


-- 
Amir (he/him)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

[Strainu]

Hi,

It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional
memory, with the T team taking center stage. It's not really
important what they did wrong, it's minor compared with other faux-pas
they did in the past.

I was wondering though if the organization as a whole has learned
anything from major crisis in the past and if there is a formal way of
passing to newcomers information such as when and how to contact
communities, what's the difference between a wiki, a community and an
affiliate etc.?

Strainu

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop Improvements coming to Vector

[Strainu]

Hey all,

I've asked some technicalities in the feedback page (and will continue
to do so as I test the new look more) but I was wondering about two
things that deserve to be discussed in a larger forum:
1. Why bundle the changes? The collapsible toolbar could be a useful
feature in itself, even for those who are firmly against the
narrow-down content area. It could also be the basis for more radical
changes, such as a "no distraction mode".
2. Why change Vector rather than creating a new skin or starting from
a 3-column skin such as Timeless? I assume it has more to do with
community dynamics than technical reasons...

Thanks,
   Strainu

În mar., 25 aug. 2020 la 20:06, effe iets anders
 a scris:
>
> I don't think the approach "we are going to see resistance anyway, so lets
> make it a bigger change" has proven to be terribly helpful in the past year
> or so.
>
> These layout changes are hard for sure, but there are definitely ways to
> bring people on board. The thing is, not every exciting change is
> necessarily going to help everyone to the same extent, and it's hard to
> convince a really diverse community. But there are a few tricks that we
> should definitely keep using, that are nothing new to the developing
> community: don't surprise (iterate and be public), try it out in a willing
> community (check) and try to remain backward compatible (how long have we
> supported the monobook skin now?).
>
> I actually feel that a constant change is more helpful, because it gives
> less of a 'now we have to fight to keep our ways' - it allows people to see
> that they will like some changes, and dislike some others, but on a
> balance, it'll improve for everyone. It's probably more time consuming
> because it requires more consultation too, but I think it's worth it.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 5:00 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Indeed! The FINAL stage of the changes is deeply conservative and not a
> > change at all. It's a small lifting, but not a real change. We are now 10
> > years old, and with the new changes we will be 8 years old in a year,
> > instead of being 11 years old.
> > 
> > From: Olga Vasileva 
> > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 1:53 PM
> > To: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> > Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop
> > Improvements coming to Vector
> >
> > Hi Vira, Ala'a, and Galder,
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback - we’re really glad you’re enjoying the changes
> > we’ve made so far.  I wanted to point out that this is not all! The
> > deployed changes are a part of a larger series of improvements that we will
> > be rolling out progressively over the next 1+ years. To see a list of the
> > other features we are planning on working on, please check out our project
> > page[1]. In addition, we believe that even after the project is complete,
> > there will still be work to do. We’d like to view this project as a new
> > baseline on which we can build new functionality that can improve both
> > reading and editing in the future.
> >
> > Thanks again!
> >
> > - Olga
> >
> > [1]
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Features
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:06 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for bringing this topic!
> > At euwiki it has been some weeks we have experienced the new vector style,
> > and it has some great things: you can be sure about how width images will
> > take for any reader, you can create better galleries or even decide where
> > to insert an image to avoid sandwiching.
> >
> > BUT...
> >
> > I think that the changes (even when finishing) will be too short on what
> > we need (a real face change!) but it will annoy in the same amount to those
> > who don't want any change at all. So, we are losing an opportunity to go on
> > with big changes.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Galder
> > 
> > From: Wikimedia-l  > wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>> on behalf of Ala'a Najjar <
> > ala201...@hotmail.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 10:06 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List  > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> > Cc: ovasil...@wikimedia.org <
> > ovasil...@wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop
> > Improvements coming to Vector
> >
> > Thanks for bring our attention to this Desktop Improvements.
> > I opened section about this on Arabic Wikipedia village pump
> > https://w.wiki/a9S, so users can try it, and maybe there feedback can
> > help Readers Web team.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alaa
> > https://w.wiki/JNQ
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l  > wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>> On Behalf Of Vira Motorko
> > Sent: Saturday, August 22, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[Aron Manning]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 14:08, Gnangarra  wrote:

> that doesn't mean we don't try to find alternative ways and improve on  the
> way we deal with issues


Having observed and researched the working of ANI it became apparent to me
that the unstructured nature of the discussions there allows for great
fluctuations in what selection of opinions and interests are represented in
each discussion. As the outcome of discussions is mostly steered by the
number of editors supporting any resolution, it's easy to drown out
individual views, even if that's the closest to the truth. A more
structured format that would limit statements and present them equally -
similar to ArbCom's - would ensure more protection from steering
discussions towards a non-neutral outcome based on popularity.
Previously in the discussions about the User reporting system I've drafted (
ref
)
how a tool that ensures this format would work.
I believe that approach would limit how "dramatic" a dispute can become.

Aron
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[William Chan]

The fact that this problem exists in nearly anywhere is true, from biases
to harasses. The problem is whether or not one actively face it, and if
there are any way that is efficient, secure and unbiased way to treat those
problems without undermining the trust mechanism of volunteers.

And all the work should not be bore on the reporter.

Hatred towards other communities is not uncommonly seen, even in Wikipedia
communities, and this is particularly true when it comes to politics. The
problem of harassments, sexual or not, should be treated in a manner where
most editors can observe how it is dealt (e.g. keeping a Standard Operating
Procedure Manual on handling complaints, much like foundation transparency
reports on government requests) but case contents keep secret, and only
members of the community that are legally-recognized by the WMF should be
allowed in dealing with cases like that, and, in particular, a stipend
should be given to their work considering the exhaustive nature.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 20:09 Gnangarra  wrote:

> Yaroslav is right it is difficult to wade through every minor diff to see a
> pattern and AN/I is incapable of reacting to anything but the extremes,
> that doesn't mean we don't try to find alternative ways and improve on  the
> way we deal with issues
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 19:10, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > In addition, (English Wikipedia) ANI can reasonably well deal with one or
> > several highly problematic diffs, but very often we have a long pattern
> > which can result in a long series of diffs, so that each one is
> > unproblematic or slightly problematic, but all together thay may
> constitute
> > a harassment pattern and make the victim feel very unpleasant. ANI is
> > absolutely not capable of dealing with this situation, and usually ArbCom
> > can not handle it either. In my situation, I overreacted a couple of
> times,
> > and then every time I would try to raise the question at best it would be
> > called "keeping old grudges" and I was advised to "grow thick skin", but
> > more often that it was told it was my fault and in fact it was harassment
> > from my side. ArbCom was not capable of performing any better. To be
> > honest, I do not see how T can perform better either. An investigation
> of
> > such situation would require wading through thousands of diffs and
> > reconstructing the whole episodes, and I just do not see how this can be
> > done.
> >
> > Best
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:57 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > The whole purpose of harassing someone is to put them under pressure,
> to
> > > make the victim upset and force them away from editing. Creating a
> clear
> > > list
> > > of problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events
> is
> > > impossible during the incident, when all thats desired is to have the
> > > immediate abuse stopped.  Emotive language is a call for help, seasoned
> > > abusers know how to play the game AN/I and the community knows them so
> > when
> > > they boo the community accepts their version. At AN/I and as Vermont
> > > explain its the victim that has to be restrain their language, its the
> > > victim that  has to be calm, its the victim that has to clearly lay out
> > all
> > > the diffs, its the victim that has to recount/relive the whole of the
> > > abuse.  The victim is not at fault but until the system supports the
> > victim
> > > the problems of in grained abuse and hostility by old hands is going to
> > > remain.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 17:51, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> > > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see.
> > > >
> > > > The English Wikipedia, and most projects in general (from my
> > experience),
> > > > are not perfect at handling problems with established editors.
> > > >
> > > > This is to be expected. However, there’s some element of draconian
> > secret
> > > > policing present in having a brigade of T employees handling any
> and
> > > all
> > > > conduct issues. We ha e local communities, and in most cases they are
> > > > successful in handling issues, but when an editor’s social clout is
> > > > involved, and/or when there’s incivility/harassment from multiple
> > > parties,
> > > > it quickly becomes a larger issue that often ends with little to no
> > > action.
> > > >
> > > > With this issue specifically, it’s minor and local community
> functions
> > > > would very likely have been able to manage it properly had the
> > > discussions
> > > > continued. The formation of the messages also help determine the
> > > outcome; a
> > > > message saying they were told to report there with no links but one
> to
> > > the
> > > > editor’s userpage is not very helpful for people viewing it. A list
> of
> > > > problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events
> is
> > > > quite helpful for those viewing it. The latter is much likely to
> result
> > > > successfully than the former.
> > > >
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop Improvements coming to Vector

[effe iets anders]

I don't think the approach "we are going to see resistance anyway, so lets
make it a bigger change" has proven to be terribly helpful in the past year
or so.

These layout changes are hard for sure, but there are definitely ways to
bring people on board. The thing is, not every exciting change is
necessarily going to help everyone to the same extent, and it's hard to
convince a really diverse community. But there are a few tricks that we
should definitely keep using, that are nothing new to the developing
community: don't surprise (iterate and be public), try it out in a willing
community (check) and try to remain backward compatible (how long have we
supported the monobook skin now?).

I actually feel that a constant change is more helpful, because it gives
less of a 'now we have to fight to keep our ways' - it allows people to see
that they will like some changes, and dislike some others, but on a
balance, it'll improve for everyone. It's probably more time consuming
because it requires more consultation too, but I think it's worth it.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 5:00 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed! The FINAL stage of the changes is deeply conservative and not a
> change at all. It's a small lifting, but not a real change. We are now 10
> years old, and with the new changes we will be 8 years old in a year,
> instead of being 11 years old.
> 
> From: Olga Vasileva 
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 1:53 PM
> To: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop
> Improvements coming to Vector
>
> Hi Vira, Ala'a, and Galder,
>
> Thanks for your feedback - we’re really glad you’re enjoying the changes
> we’ve made so far.  I wanted to point out that this is not all! The
> deployed changes are a part of a larger series of improvements that we will
> be rolling out progressively over the next 1+ years. To see a list of the
> other features we are planning on working on, please check out our project
> page[1]. In addition, we believe that even after the project is complete,
> there will still be work to do. We’d like to view this project as a new
> baseline on which we can build new functionality that can improve both
> reading and editing in the future.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> - Olga
>
> [1]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Features
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:06 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this topic!
> At euwiki it has been some weeks we have experienced the new vector style,
> and it has some great things: you can be sure about how width images will
> take for any reader, you can create better galleries or even decide where
> to insert an image to avoid sandwiching.
>
> BUT...
>
> I think that the changes (even when finishing) will be too short on what
> we need (a real face change!) but it will annoy in the same amount to those
> who don't want any change at all. So, we are losing an opportunity to go on
> with big changes.
>
> Best
>
> Galder
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>> on behalf of Ala'a Najjar <
> ala201...@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 10:06 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List  wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Cc: ovasil...@wikimedia.org <
> ovasil...@wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop
> Improvements coming to Vector
>
> Thanks for bring our attention to this Desktop Improvements.
> I opened section about this on Arabic Wikipedia village pump
> https://w.wiki/a9S, so users can try it, and maybe there feedback can
> help Readers Web team.
>
> Best,
> Alaa
> https://w.wiki/JNQ
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l  wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>> On Behalf Of Vira Motorko
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 1:01 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List‏  wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop
> Improvements coming to Vector
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don't see any messages about the Desktop Improvements to wikimedia-l, so
> I've decided to forward one from wikitech-l.
>
> If I understand correctly, Desktop Improvements are changes to the desktop
> version of the Vector skin, which are to be built throughout the next year,
> features being added one by one. Several wikis already enjoy them by
> default, and users of other wikis can find a respective tick in their
> preferences to make new Vector visible.
>
> Current features are said to not be permanent anyway but wouldn't it be
> good for more people to see them while they are still work in progress?
>
> See email text and links below.
> *--*
> *Vira Motorko // Віра Моторко*
> mobile: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[Gnangarra]

Yaroslav is right it is difficult to wade through every minor diff to see a
pattern and AN/I is incapable of reacting to anything but the extremes,
that doesn't mean we don't try to find alternative ways and improve on  the
way we deal with issues

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 19:10, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> In addition, (English Wikipedia) ANI can reasonably well deal with one or
> several highly problematic diffs, but very often we have a long pattern
> which can result in a long series of diffs, so that each one is
> unproblematic or slightly problematic, but all together thay may constitute
> a harassment pattern and make the victim feel very unpleasant. ANI is
> absolutely not capable of dealing with this situation, and usually ArbCom
> can not handle it either. In my situation, I overreacted a couple of times,
> and then every time I would try to raise the question at best it would be
> called "keeping old grudges" and I was advised to "grow thick skin", but
> more often that it was told it was my fault and in fact it was harassment
> from my side. ArbCom was not capable of performing any better. To be
> honest, I do not see how T can perform better either. An investigation of
> such situation would require wading through thousands of diffs and
> reconstructing the whole episodes, and I just do not see how this can be
> done.
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:57 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > The whole purpose of harassing someone is to put them under pressure, to
> > make the victim upset and force them away from editing. Creating a clear
> > list
> > of problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
> > impossible during the incident, when all thats desired is to have the
> > immediate abuse stopped.  Emotive language is a call for help, seasoned
> > abusers know how to play the game AN/I and the community knows them so
> when
> > they boo the community accepts their version. At AN/I and as Vermont
> > explain its the victim that has to be restrain their language, its the
> > victim that  has to be calm, its the victim that has to clearly lay out
> all
> > the diffs, its the victim that has to recount/relive the whole of the
> > abuse.  The victim is not at fault but until the system supports the
> victim
> > the problems of in grained abuse and hostility by old hands is going to
> > remain.
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 17:51, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I see.
> > >
> > > The English Wikipedia, and most projects in general (from my
> experience),
> > > are not perfect at handling problems with established editors.
> > >
> > > This is to be expected. However, there’s some element of draconian
> secret
> > > policing present in having a brigade of T employees handling any and
> > all
> > > conduct issues. We ha e local communities, and in most cases they are
> > > successful in handling issues, but when an editor’s social clout is
> > > involved, and/or when there’s incivility/harassment from multiple
> > parties,
> > > it quickly becomes a larger issue that often ends with little to no
> > action.
> > >
> > > With this issue specifically, it’s minor and local community functions
> > > would very likely have been able to manage it properly had the
> > discussions
> > > continued. The formation of the messages also help determine the
> > outcome; a
> > > message saying they were told to report there with no links but one to
> > the
> > > editor’s userpage is not very helpful for people viewing it. A list of
> > > problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
> > > quite helpful for those viewing it. The latter is much likely to result
> > > successfully than the former.
> > >
> > > Also, T actions are not quick and easy either. Their investigations
> are
> > > usually quite extensive and take equally extensive periods of time.
> > > Communities act quicker, and though the volunteers may be affected more
> > by
> > > personal prejudice than employees of the WMF, we are a collaborative
> > > project that relies on community input.
> > >
> > > Hopefully the UCoC is successful with setting reasonable definitions
> and
> > > expectations for community enforcement of conduct policies, though in
> my
> > > view larger projects are not the most pressing issue to be addressed by
> > the
> > > UCoC. This instance of sexual harassment is minor when viewed in
> > > perspective. It’s clearly uncivil and a problem, and we don’t know how
> > the
> > > ANI section would have ended up if continued (though I would have
> > supported
> > > a strong warning and block if it continued, perhaps an IBAN), but it
> > could
> > > have been handled locally. Take a look at most projects with under 30
> > > admins. Small community, usually tightly knit, with entrenched
> > hierarchies
> > > of social clout. Those projects are where extreme incivility, blatant
> > > bigotry, and clearly biased administrative 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[Yaroslav Blanter]

In addition, (English Wikipedia) ANI can reasonably well deal with one or
several highly problematic diffs, but very often we have a long pattern
which can result in a long series of diffs, so that each one is
unproblematic or slightly problematic, but all together thay may constitute
a harassment pattern and make the victim feel very unpleasant. ANI is
absolutely not capable of dealing with this situation, and usually ArbCom
can not handle it either. In my situation, I overreacted a couple of times,
and then every time I would try to raise the question at best it would be
called "keeping old grudges" and I was advised to "grow thick skin", but
more often that it was told it was my fault and in fact it was harassment
from my side. ArbCom was not capable of performing any better. To be
honest, I do not see how T can perform better either. An investigation of
such situation would require wading through thousands of diffs and
reconstructing the whole episodes, and I just do not see how this can be
done.

Best
Yaroslav

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:57 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> The whole purpose of harassing someone is to put them under pressure, to
> make the victim upset and force them away from editing. Creating a clear
> list
> of problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
> impossible during the incident, when all thats desired is to have the
> immediate abuse stopped.  Emotive language is a call for help, seasoned
> abusers know how to play the game AN/I and the community knows them so when
> they boo the community accepts their version. At AN/I and as Vermont
> explain its the victim that has to be restrain their language, its the
> victim that  has to be calm, its the victim that has to clearly lay out all
> the diffs, its the victim that has to recount/relive the whole of the
> abuse.  The victim is not at fault but until the system supports the victim
> the problems of in grained abuse and hostility by old hands is going to
> remain.
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 17:51, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > I see.
> >
> > The English Wikipedia, and most projects in general (from my experience),
> > are not perfect at handling problems with established editors.
> >
> > This is to be expected. However, there’s some element of draconian secret
> > policing present in having a brigade of T employees handling any and
> all
> > conduct issues. We ha e local communities, and in most cases they are
> > successful in handling issues, but when an editor’s social clout is
> > involved, and/or when there’s incivility/harassment from multiple
> parties,
> > it quickly becomes a larger issue that often ends with little to no
> action.
> >
> > With this issue specifically, it’s minor and local community functions
> > would very likely have been able to manage it properly had the
> discussions
> > continued. The formation of the messages also help determine the
> outcome; a
> > message saying they were told to report there with no links but one to
> the
> > editor’s userpage is not very helpful for people viewing it. A list of
> > problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
> > quite helpful for those viewing it. The latter is much likely to result
> > successfully than the former.
> >
> > Also, T actions are not quick and easy either. Their investigations are
> > usually quite extensive and take equally extensive periods of time.
> > Communities act quicker, and though the volunteers may be affected more
> by
> > personal prejudice than employees of the WMF, we are a collaborative
> > project that relies on community input.
> >
> > Hopefully the UCoC is successful with setting reasonable definitions and
> > expectations for community enforcement of conduct policies, though in my
> > view larger projects are not the most pressing issue to be addressed by
> the
> > UCoC. This instance of sexual harassment is minor when viewed in
> > perspective. It’s clearly uncivil and a problem, and we don’t know how
> the
> > ANI section would have ended up if continued (though I would have
> supported
> > a strong warning and block if it continued, perhaps an IBAN), but it
> could
> > have been handled locally. Take a look at most projects with under 30
> > admins. Small community, usually tightly knit, with entrenched
> hierarchies
> > of social clout. Those projects are where extreme incivility, blatant
> > bigotry, and clearly biased administrative actions occur most often. Not
> to
> > mention non-harassment/incivility issues like copyright violations,
> > backwards policies, and historical revisionism, completely ignored by
> local
> > administrators, which hopefully at some point can be mitigated as well.
> >
> > Regarding Fæ’s email, it would be interesting and useful to see a study
> on
> > boomerangs at ANI. It does seem prevalent for newer editors, experiencing
> > biting from more established editors, to be unable to seek 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[Gnangarra]

The whole purpose of harassing someone is to put them under pressure, to
make the victim upset and force them away from editing. Creating a clear  list
of problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
impossible during the incident, when all thats desired is to have the
immediate abuse stopped.  Emotive language is a call for help, seasoned
abusers know how to play the game AN/I and the community knows them so when
they boo the community accepts their version. At AN/I and as Vermont
explain its the victim that has to be restrain their language, its the
victim that  has to be calm, its the victim that has to clearly lay out all
the diffs, its the victim that has to recount/relive the whole of the
abuse.  The victim is not at fault but until the system supports the victim
the problems of in grained abuse and hostility by old hands is going to
remain.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 17:51, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I see.
>
> The English Wikipedia, and most projects in general (from my experience),
> are not perfect at handling problems with established editors.
>
> This is to be expected. However, there’s some element of draconian secret
> policing present in having a brigade of T employees handling any and all
> conduct issues. We ha e local communities, and in most cases they are
> successful in handling issues, but when an editor’s social clout is
> involved, and/or when there’s incivility/harassment from multiple parties,
> it quickly becomes a larger issue that often ends with little to no action.
>
> With this issue specifically, it’s minor and local community functions
> would very likely have been able to manage it properly had the discussions
> continued. The formation of the messages also help determine the outcome; a
> message saying they were told to report there with no links but one to the
> editor’s userpage is not very helpful for people viewing it. A list of
> problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
> quite helpful for those viewing it. The latter is much likely to result
> successfully than the former.
>
> Also, T actions are not quick and easy either. Their investigations are
> usually quite extensive and take equally extensive periods of time.
> Communities act quicker, and though the volunteers may be affected more by
> personal prejudice than employees of the WMF, we are a collaborative
> project that relies on community input.
>
> Hopefully the UCoC is successful with setting reasonable definitions and
> expectations for community enforcement of conduct policies, though in my
> view larger projects are not the most pressing issue to be addressed by the
> UCoC. This instance of sexual harassment is minor when viewed in
> perspective. It’s clearly uncivil and a problem, and we don’t know how the
> ANI section would have ended up if continued (though I would have supported
> a strong warning and block if it continued, perhaps an IBAN), but it could
> have been handled locally. Take a look at most projects with under 30
> admins. Small community, usually tightly knit, with entrenched hierarchies
> of social clout. Those projects are where extreme incivility, blatant
> bigotry, and clearly biased administrative actions occur most often. Not to
> mention non-harassment/incivility issues like copyright violations,
> backwards policies, and historical revisionism, completely ignored by local
> administrators, which hopefully at some point can be mitigated as well.
>
> Regarding Fæ’s email, it would be interesting and useful to see a study on
> boomerangs at ANI. It does seem prevalent for newer editors, experiencing
> biting from more established editors, to be unable to seek rectification
> for the more established editor’s conduct. It is unfortunately also common
> that, when incivility exists, some of it is present on both sides, making
> these issues much less clear-cut and dramatically increasing the
> potentiality for a boomerang.
>
> Best,
> Vermont
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 15:40 William Chan  wrote:
>
> > Why the harassed normally email T but not seeking local help:
> >
> >
> > Sometimes some kinds of harassment against a person or a group is an
> > orchestrated attempt driven by off-wiki matters. Considering the
> > "importance" of Wikipedia and it's sister projects, and the fundamentally
> > huge size of the movement, it seemed mostly unnoticeable in some cases.
> >
> > These kinds of planned harassment (not only sexual harassment but all
> forms
> > of harassment) would not normally be observed in large languages used by
> > different nations because the sheer size of the user base diluted their
> > attempts.
> >
> > However, if language becomes national and got very limited outside use
> > apart from the country they are from (i.e. Japanese in Japan, or Korean
> in
> > Korea,etc. Not saying they have a serious sexual harassment problem, just
> > an example), harassment against the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

I see.

The English Wikipedia, and most projects in general (from my experience),
are not perfect at handling problems with established editors.

This is to be expected. However, there’s some element of draconian secret
policing present in having a brigade of T employees handling any and all
conduct issues. We ha e local communities, and in most cases they are
successful in handling issues, but when an editor’s social clout is
involved, and/or when there’s incivility/harassment from multiple parties,
it quickly becomes a larger issue that often ends with little to no action.

With this issue specifically, it’s minor and local community functions
would very likely have been able to manage it properly had the discussions
continued. The formation of the messages also help determine the outcome; a
message saying they were told to report there with no links but one to the
editor’s userpage is not very helpful for people viewing it. A list of
problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
quite helpful for those viewing it. The latter is much likely to result
successfully than the former.

Also, T actions are not quick and easy either. Their investigations are
usually quite extensive and take equally extensive periods of time.
Communities act quicker, and though the volunteers may be affected more by
personal prejudice than employees of the WMF, we are a collaborative
project that relies on community input.

Hopefully the UCoC is successful with setting reasonable definitions and
expectations for community enforcement of conduct policies, though in my
view larger projects are not the most pressing issue to be addressed by the
UCoC. This instance of sexual harassment is minor when viewed in
perspective. It’s clearly uncivil and a problem, and we don’t know how the
ANI section would have ended up if continued (though I would have supported
a strong warning and block if it continued, perhaps an IBAN), but it could
have been handled locally. Take a look at most projects with under 30
admins. Small community, usually tightly knit, with entrenched hierarchies
of social clout. Those projects are where extreme incivility, blatant
bigotry, and clearly biased administrative actions occur most often. Not to
mention non-harassment/incivility issues like copyright violations,
backwards policies, and historical revisionism, completely ignored by local
administrators, which hopefully at some point can be mitigated as well.

Regarding Fæ’s email, it would be interesting and useful to see a study on
boomerangs at ANI. It does seem prevalent for newer editors, experiencing
biting from more established editors, to be unable to seek rectification
for the more established editor’s conduct. It is unfortunately also common
that, when incivility exists, some of it is present on both sides, making
these issues much less clear-cut and dramatically increasing the
potentiality for a boomerang.

Best,
Vermont



On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 15:40 William Chan  wrote:

> Why the harassed normally email T but not seeking local help:
>
>
> Sometimes some kinds of harassment against a person or a group is an
> orchestrated attempt driven by off-wiki matters. Considering the
> "importance" of Wikipedia and it's sister projects, and the fundamentally
> huge size of the movement, it seemed mostly unnoticeable in some cases.
>
> These kinds of planned harassment (not only sexual harassment but all forms
> of harassment) would not normally be observed in large languages used by
> different nations because the sheer size of the user base diluted their
> attempts.
>
> However, if language becomes national and got very limited outside use
> apart from the country they are from (i.e. Japanese in Japan, or Korean in
> Korea,etc. Not saying they have a serious sexual harassment problem, just
> an example), harassment against the minority may appear in all forms,
> including but not limited to blocking them from any administrative posts,
> to sexual harassments to an outright ban of some individuals. In this case,
> local bodies which deal with harassing would be normally held by those who
> are, or show sympathy to the harasser, and that is the problem.
>
> Local governance (last stand) bodies are usually opaque in nature - the
> elections to those bodies are normally fair, but it is not transparent
> enough of what they do just because they are volunteer.
>
> Those very large communities normally have a (relatively) inefficient speed
> to deal with issues because of the number of problems they receive.
> The irony is that, for the smaller communities is, the abuser would have
> some connection with the last-stand bodies, that would mean conflict of
> interest - though with much irony, COI is not observed when they are
> playing Wikipolitics.
>
> This means, you either get a local "slow safe soace" because they receive
> too many case to review per day, or an "unsafe safe space" because
> harassers know those who deal with these