subject:"\[Wikimedia\-l\] Participating on Wikipediocracy"

> Seeing the partner of the WMF ED going out of his way actively to run
> about on multiple public channels to support and promote
> Wikipediocracy, a website owned by Gregory Kohs and which is used by
> him to lobby his obsessive anti-Wikimedia yellow journalism, is
> increasingly disturbing and worrying.

You can just call me Wil. :)

> It would have been great had Wil taken the advice from the most
> experienced long term Wikimedia volunteers and re-focused for a month
> or two on gaining practical experience at volunteering on Wikimedia
> projects, and in turn gaining the trust of fellow volunteers, before
> attempting to single-handedly attempt to take a lead on community
> politics by using the name of his parter as his calling card. Were he
> writing on Wikipediocracy using the benefit of that experience, then
> this would feel rather less like Wil taking his views from that site
> and immediately promoting them on Wikimedia channels.

I have been working on that practical experience. But people keep
replying to this thread, so I keep coming back to provide what answers
I can.

Again, Fae, I really am not interested in politics. I will promote
views that I think are worth promoting anywhere I people seem
interested in them. If you aren't interested, please feel free to
ignore me. I've been hearing from quite a lot of people who are.

> Lila Tretikov will need to work extremely hard with the (productive)
> volunteer community to gain confidence in her personal judgement when
> it comes to holding the future strategy for the Wikimedia Community
> and remove the bad taste this political gaming is leaving behind.
> Along with the inevitable suspicion that this has been a
> not-very-covert ploy by Lila to jumpstart re-engineering our
> community.

Hmmm. That's a new one to me. :)

> Do any WMF Trustees have an opinion about these shenanigans by Wil, or
> even better, Lila?

I wouldn't know about that.

> Wil - take a break away from the keyboard, and seek some sensible
> advice before going yet further along the public path you are
> committing yourself and Lila to. At this point, I find it had to
> imagine any scenario where your actions this week turn out to have
> been a clever and wise strategy for Wikimedia.

Wikimedia can take care of its own strategy, as far as I'm concerned.
I appreciate the advice about the keyboard. And this conversation is
getting pretty repetitive, isn't it?

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-25 Thread Fæ

On 25 May 2014 17:04, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> Besides knowing for a fact that we're not discussing anything like
> this in our family for obvious reasons, I don't know whether they are
> being discussed on Facebook or elsewhere. But I do know that they are
> being discussed quite rigorously on Wikipediocracy.
>
> People can even check for themselves, if they'd like: 
> http://wikipediocracy.com
>
> Please send me any links you have to Facebook pages, etc.
>
> Thanks!
> ,Wil

Seeing the partner of the WMF ED going out of his way actively to run
about on multiple public channels to support and promote
Wikipediocracy, a website owned by Gregory Kohs and which is used by
him to lobby his obsessive anti-Wikimedia yellow journalism, is
increasingly disturbing and worrying.

It would have been great had Wil taken the advice from the most
experienced long term Wikimedia volunteers and re-focused for a month
or two on gaining practical experience at volunteering on Wikimedia
projects, and in turn gaining the trust of fellow volunteers, before
attempting to single-handedly attempt to take a lead on community
politics by using the name of his parter as his calling card. Were he
writing on Wikipediocracy using the benefit of that experience, then
this would feel rather less like Wil taking his views from that site
and immediately promoting them on Wikimedia channels.

Lila Tretikov will need to work extremely hard with the (productive)
volunteer community to gain confidence in her personal judgement when
it comes to holding the future strategy for the Wikimedia Community
and remove the bad taste this political gaming is leaving behind.
Along with the inevitable suspicion that this has been a
not-very-covert ploy by Lila to jumpstart re-engineering our
community.

Do any WMF Trustees have an opinion about these shenanigans by Wil, or
even better, Lila?

Wil - take a break away from the keyboard, and seek some sensible
advice before going yet further along the public path you are
committing yourself and Lila to. At this point, I find it had to
imagine any scenario where your actions this week turn out to have
been a clever and wise strategy for Wikimedia.

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

Actually, I think it's more about the naming names, accusations
(whether true or not, I wouldn't know; I never look in to those), and
some of the rather vivid imagery that is sometimes served up with
those names. I don't remember seeing a lot of that stuff coming from
you, edward, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that there isn't
more of that there than here.

As I mentioned earlier, however, they are very different forums with
only some overlapping purpose in discussing general WP issues. IMO
there's little to be gained out of comparing the two and everything to
be gained out of elevating the nature of discourse for each according
to its own purpose.

,Wil

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 3:38 AM, edward  wrote:
> On Fri May 23 23:06:32 UTC 2014 Wil Sinclair wrote:
> 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.
>
> On Sat May 24 21:33:07 UTC 2014 David Gerard wrote:
> It's a festering pit of spammers, trolls and nutters, and is a net negative
> in just about every way.

___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>
>> The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community
>> members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering
>> you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is
>> actually making the world a better place, dot by dot.
>>
>
>
> That sounds like a faith-based statement, rather than a rational one.

If it is, then I will take faith in what David says. I'm sure everyone
here would like to contribute in their own way, and we all know how
hard that can get in groups. Even for small ones like this. ;)

,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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

> *ding don* false dichotomy bell rings: why are so many discussing about wiki
> stuff on Facebook? Or in person with their family? Or or or or or?

Besides knowing for a fact that we're not discussing anything like
this in our family for obvious reasons, I don't know whether they are
being discussed on Facebook or elsewhere. But I do know that they are
being discussed quite rigorously on Wikipediocracy.

People can even check for themselves, if they'd like: http://wikipediocracy.com

Please send me any links you have to Facebook pages, etc.

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-25 Thread MZMcBride

MZMcBride wrote:
>I've read your replies and I understand what you're saying (succinctly
>summarized by you as ",Wil!=Lila&&Wil!=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.

If nothing else, this mailing list thread can serve to teach me that I
wanted "contingent" there, not "contingency".

I also used "hierarchal" instead of "hierarchical" this month before
re-realizing that even though "hierarchal" is a real word and won't be
marked as a misspelling, it's still not the word I want. English is cruel.

MZMcBride



___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-25 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)


Wil Sinclair, 25/05/2014 02:00:

why are so many contributors,
admins, and upstanding members of the WP community going there to
discuss issues instead of talking through them in places like this
forum?


*ding don* false dichotomy bell rings: why are so many discussing about 
wiki stuff on Facebook? Or in person with their family? Or or or or or?


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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-25 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community
> members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering
> you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is
> actually making the world a better place, dot by dot.
>

That sounds like a faith-based statement, rather than a rational one.
___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-25 Thread edward



On 25/05/2014 12:16, David Gerard wrote:
>>The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community 
members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering 
you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is 
actually making the world a better place, dot by dot.


Remember that criticism also makes the world a better place. Not in that 
happy-clappy inane smile kind of way, but, simply, a better place.


I could give you many examples of this.

E

___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-25 Thread David Gerard

On 25 May 2014 01:11, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Thanks, David, and I agree 100% that there's a lot that I can only
> learn by participating. That's one reason I'm here. :) I've also been
> uploading sound loops to Commons, and I'm working on a few new
> articles on various pet interests of mine. I think the one thing left
> that Fae suggested I do is edit a BLP, IIRC. I know that there has
> been some discussion about how to handle BLP's here and on WO. These
> particular issues seem much harder to grok without some experience, so
> I think Fae was on-point when he suggested I just dive right in.



The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community
members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering
you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is
actually making the world a better place, dot by dot.


- 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-25 Thread edward


On Fri May 23 23:06:32 UTC 2014 Wil Sinclair wrote:
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.

On Sat May 24 21:33:07 UTC 2014 David Gerard wrote:
It's a festering pit of spammers, trolls and nutters, and is a net 
negative in just about every way.




___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

> Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your
> question "what's going on?" in a sentence (or a paragraph or an
> essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things
> by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not
> sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the
> best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff
> with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun
> and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias
> for fun as a kid.
>
> I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia.
> Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow
> humans are, really.

Thanks, David, and I agree 100% that there's a lot that I can only
learn by participating. That's one reason I'm here. :) I've also been
uploading sound loops to Commons, and I'm working on a few new
articles on various pet interests of mine. I think the one thing left
that Fae suggested I do is edit a BLP, IIRC. I know that there has
been some discussion about how to handle BLP's here and on WO. These
particular issues seem much harder to grok without some experience, so
I think Fae was on-point when he suggested I just dive right in.

I've also learned a lot from Wikipediocracy, but YMMV. :)

,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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

I don't know about any specific incidents Newyorkbrad has referred to
below, but I generally agree with his characterization of the site.
I've told them exactly what I think of the nature of some discourse
there when I started this thread:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4527.

I recommend that anyone who chooses to participate on Wikipediocracy
keep this in mind. It is a site that was set up solely to criticize
Wikipedia and (in my opinion, unfortunately) some members of its
community. It is not the world's foremost reference site and, not
surprisingly, has very different policies. I don't see why it should
be held to the same standards as Wikipedia, any more than a site like
Encyclopedia Dramatica should. Personally, I choose to ignore the
personal stuff and look for secondary sources on the issues I care
about. Fortunately, they provide many very ligit links (most of them
to WP, as I have mentioned) to back up their arguments.

This discussion begs the question: if there's a lot on Wikipediocracy
that they find unpleasant or offensive, why are so many contributors,
admins, and upstanding members of the WP community going there to
discuss issues instead of talking through them in places like this
forum?

,Wil

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Newyorkbrad  wrote:
> I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor
> Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I
> haven't been participating.  At times I've gained useful insights and
> information from things posted on those sites.  In particular, they have
> been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention
> to the well-being of BLP subjects.
>
> To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some
> things that take place on those sites.  A few contributors there have
> a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to
> exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their
> illogical extremes.  The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia
> norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or
> pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and
> important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it.  The tone
> of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be
> deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round
> Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.)  There is a
> troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities
> and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is
> particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued).  The wholesale
> publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing
> list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point.
>
> As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on
> policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on
> particular individuals.
>
> I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
> Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
> badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
> it reflects badly on Lila.  I do suggest to Wil that a critic site
> should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia,
> and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply
> accepted.  But I suspect that Wil understands that already.
>
> Newyorkbrad

___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Russavia wrote:

> Andreas
>
> > And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito.
> That
> > in itself is food for thought.
>
> And therein lies the problem.
>
> In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO
> forums on an issue in which I wasn't involved, and then proceded to
> close an AfD as if he was an uninvolved admin/bureaucrat.
>
> 28bytes is as a dishonest person who you will ever come across, and he
> "outed" himself only after seeing the "secret" subforum where he saw
> he was going to be outed by you guys.
>
> And you want to hold him as an example of a shining example of WO
> membership, seriously?
>

Personally, I'd much rather any admins, bureaucrats and checkusers who have
active accounts on WO would be open about their WP user names.

This doesn't change the fact, does it, that David's description of 28bytes
as a "troll", and presumably one of the "justifiably-banned users", was
ludicrously at variance with the facts. 28bytes is trusted with more
permissions on the English Wikipedia than David is.
___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Russavia

Andreas

> And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That
> in itself is food for thought.

And therein lies the problem.

In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO
forums on an issue in which I wasn't involved, and then proceded to
close an AfD as if he was an uninvolved admin/bureaucrat.

28bytes is as a dishonest person who you will ever come across, and he
"outed" himself only after seeing the "secret" subforum where he saw
he was going to be outed by you guys.

And you want to hold him as an example of a shining example of WO
membership, seriously?

Russavia

___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

>
>
> I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers,
> trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way.
> en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if
> they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted
> arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and
> having to resign on his first day.
>

This "they're all banned trolls" talk is getting really old, David.

That particular "troll" (User:28bytes) is an active administrator and
bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia today. WO was unaware of his on-wiki
identity, and that he was running for ArbCom. We found out after he won the
ArbCom election – and if we hadn't, you wouldn't have.

And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That
in itself is food for thought.
___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread David Gerard

On 24 May 2014 22:21, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, "Newyorkbrad"  wrote:

>> I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
>> Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
>> badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
>> it reflects badly on Lila.

> But is there anybody who has actually expressed that view?

I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers,
trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way.
en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if
they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted
arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and
having to resign on his first day. (Great going, guys - that's
definitely how to maintain that all-important decorum) The site exists
to further bitterness and wikispamming (it's not clear which comes
first; possibly both equally) and every time I'm foolish enough to
look at it I feel stupider afterwards.

Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your
question "what's going on?" in a sentence (or a paragraph or an
essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things
by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not
sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the
best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff
with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun
and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias
for fun as a kid.

I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia.
Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow
humans are, really.

- 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Pete Forsyth

On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, "Newyorkbrad"  wrote:
>
> I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
> Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
> badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
> it reflects badly on Lila.

But is there anybody who has actually expressed that view?

Pete
___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Newyorkbrad

I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor
Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I
haven't been participating.  At times I've gained useful insights and
information from things posted on those sites.  In particular, they have
been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention
to the well-being of BLP subjects.

To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some
things that take place on those sites.  A few contributors there have
a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to
exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their
illogical extremes.  The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia
norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or
pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and
important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it.  The tone
of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be
deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round
Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.)  There is a
troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities
and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is
particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued).  The wholesale
publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing
list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point.

As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on
policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on
particular individuals.

I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
it reflects badly on Lila.  I do suggest to Wil that a critic site
should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia,
and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply
accepted.  But I suspect that Wil understands that already.

Newyorkbrad

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> > So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
> > about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
> > like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
> > of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
> > dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.
>
> I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues
> that affect my own children.
>
> Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring
> insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about
> what may or may not be going on in each other's heads.
>
> Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more
> on what's being said rather than who is saying it.
>
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

> So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
> about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
> like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
> of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
> dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.

I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues
that affect my own children.

Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring
insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about
what may or may not be going on in each other's heads.

Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more
on what's being said rather than who is saying it.

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Pete Forsyth

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> If that was not for public eyes,


All: My last message to the list was indeed intended for a specific
individual, not the list. But there's nothing in it I want to back away
from, it's an accurate reflection of my (still evolving) views.

Wil, on the propriety of talking behind your back: I don't think I did
anything wrong here. If we had a relationship, I'd probably have reached
out to you, to make sure I understood you right or to try to persuade you
to change your behavior, before talking to others. But we haven't spoken
before, and I have no reason to think that would have a worthwhile outcome.
I'm pretty confident that there are dozens -- no, hundreds -- of opinions
forming in the heads and conversations of the various people who read this
list, and I'm pretty sure that is entirely appropriate. Would you want a
personal message about every one of them? You'd have a lot of reading to do.

Also, you asked about the first line. I was referring to the American TV
show The West Wing (early 7th season). It wasn't in response to anything in
this email thread though, or anything that's happened on this list recently.

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe

Marc,

I am sure you are aware of the discussion here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection

Those concerns were raised not by banned trolls, but by members of the
English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, and other users with advanced
permissions. They were raised over a year ago, and as far as I am aware,
the situation is unchanged.

You said earlier,

"In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach
'mainstream' venues soon enough if it was legitimate."

In a sense you're right: this was brought up by mainstream players, in a
mainstream locale: Sue's talk page. However, the fact of the matter is
that *nothing
has been done to address the concern*.

You say, "WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't even
actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered anything
significant on the matter".

You may remember the case on Commons of Beta-M, a man who newspapers
reported was jailed in the US for distribution of child pornography and
deported, and who subsequently took on a key role as a curator of adult
content on Commons. He also left messages on dozens of Commons user talk
pages inviting them to send him nude pictures of themselves for use on his
private website. He was eventually removed from Wikimedia projects by WMF
office action – one of very few of this kind ever taken – against the will
of the Commons community.

The sole reason for the office action was that the matter of his prior
conviction was brought up by WR/WO critics. I have no doubt that he would
have carried on much as before otherwise.

Another self-described pedophile recently offered nude pictures of his wife
to Commons, as discussed on this mailing list a few days ago. At one point,
he was trying to re-write the child protection policy on Meta, a fact which
was brought up on Geoff Brigham's user talk page on Meta.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Leucosticte

He is still free to contribute to Wikimedia projects, despite a number of
people now having raised his contributions as problematic.

The recent terms-of-use change proposal to address paid editing came in the
wake of reporting on Wiki-PR's sockpuppet army by the Daily Dot.

The situation had been festering on-wiki for months. One longstanding
bureaucrat resigned over it.

Qworty contributed for over half a decade. What complaints there were about
him over the years never led to action, until a journalist wrote an exposé
of him.

I do not see self-regulation working effectively. Sometimes, outside
criticism is vital, as it is for *any organisation in society*. In that
sense, I see our effort as making a productive contribution.

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> Hello again, Wil.
>
> It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place
> to do so.  But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to
> not answer:
>
> On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> > If they are exposing serious problems
> > that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
> > motives are?
>
> Because their priorities are out of whack.  By their obsession over nits
> and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their
> participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing...
>
> Over and before the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much
> more *important* things that need fixing that are plain for everyone to
> see but just don't happen to be usable as weapons against others.
> (Systemic bias, participation by women, the changing editor landscape,
> increasing PR manipulation... I could go on all day).
>
> Also, they harp repeatedly on the same points over and over that have
> been "asked and answered" by the community, the discussion of which has
> repeatedly shown to be both unproductive and cause for strife.  Given
> that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable -- but
> that's not a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wants to be a
> productive participant in the movement.
>
> Case in point is their obsession with imagining that the project are
> replete with pedophiles and pedophile-enablers, focusing on what they
> hallucinate is a lack of diligence in handling the matter because we do
> so discretely.
>
> So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
> about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
> like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
> of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
> dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.
>
> Like it or not, you are the spouse of the most visible person of the
> movement and what you do will always be associated with what Lila does.
>  Imagine a little what your reaction would be if the spouse of your
> local chief of police was publicly socializing with known gang members?
>
> Yes, you ar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

Which bits did you feel were selective, i.e. which parts of your 
original meaning were changed by quoting sentence fragments? I mean you 
did actually say that the criticism on WO "has led to exposing serious 
problems that desperately needed fixing".  You then followed that up, 
and here I quote the whole sentence "By their obsession over nits and 
trying to find things to hold against the projects and their 
participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing".


It's not clear whether you agree that WO criticism has uncovered some 
serious problems, in which case that's a good thing, regardless of 
motivation, or whether the problems aren't serious, as is implied by 
your term 'nits' (small creatures that are trivial in the grand scheme 
of things).  In the same post you then refer to "the numerous much 
larger, much more complicated and much more *important* things that need 
fixing", which implies the 'serious problems that desperately needed 
fixing' are not so serious.


I also noted that one of the 'more important' things you refer to was 
also a strong focus for WO, namely the gaming by paid editors and 
suchlike, i.e. you suggested that WO isn't focused on such things, 
whereas in fact they are.   To my mind, conflict of interest (financial, 
agenda-driven, nationalistic and, yes, editing by pedophiles), is the 
most serious problem facing the project.


On 24/05/2014 16:30, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:

You mean "selectively quoting"?  I was not aware of misquoting you. I
used your very words.

Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then.  I
could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments
is, necessarily, "misquoting" but this was a simple production error --
having both 'selectively quoting' and 'misquoting' in mind I ended up
writing halfway between both.

-- Mar


___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:
> You mean "selectively quoting"?  I was not aware of misquoting you. I
> used your very words.

Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then.  I
could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments
is, necessarily, "misquoting" but this was a simple production error --
having both 'selectively quoting' and 'misquoting' in mind I ended up
writing halfway between both.

-- 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy


On 24/05/2014 16:19, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

not unlike how by
selectively misquoting my previous email


You mean "selectively quoting"?  I was not aware of misquoting you. I 
used your very words.


___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

On 05/24/2014 11:13 AM, edward wrote:
> Also this complaint
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection
> from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one.

There are issues indeed about who is supposed to handle what aspect of
the matter; with opinions diverging about respective roles of various
participants.  WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't
even actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered
anything significant on the matter.

Of course, taking anything out of context can make any issue look
disproportionally important or significant; not unlike how by
selectively misquoting my previous email you made it seem like I was
holding a position I was not in order to attack it.

-- 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

Also this complaint 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection 
from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one.


___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy


Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 02:31:32 UTC 2014
>>the criticism there has led to exposing **serious problems that 
desperately needed fixing**,


Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 15:00:31 UTC 2014
>>By their obsession over **nits**

Which?

>>increasing PR manipulation

This has been a consistent focus for WO and its predecessor for several 
years. There is a whole sub-forum devoted to this problem.


>>Given that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable

Again, this is a claim about psychological states that you need to justify.

>>you were simply aping one of their calls for war.  Coming from most 
anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling


You mean concerns about child protection?


___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

Hello again, Wil.

It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place
to do so.  But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to
not answer:

On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> If they are exposing serious problems
> that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
> motives are?

Because their priorities are out of whack.  By their obsession over nits
and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their
participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing...

Over and before the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much
more *important* things that need fixing that are plain for everyone to
see but just don't happen to be usable as weapons against others.
(Systemic bias, participation by women, the changing editor landscape,
increasing PR manipulation... I could go on all day).

Also, they harp repeatedly on the same points over and over that have
been "asked and answered" by the community, the discussion of which has
repeatedly shown to be both unproductive and cause for strife.  Given
that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable -- but
that's not a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wants to be a
productive participant in the movement.

Case in point is their obsession with imagining that the project are
replete with pedophiles and pedophile-enablers, focusing on what they
hallucinate is a lack of diligence in handling the matter because we do
so discretely.

So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.

Like it or not, you are the spouse of the most visible person of the
movement and what you do will always be associated with what Lila does.
 Imagine a little what your reaction would be if the spouse of your
local chief of police was publicly socializing with known gang members?

Yes, you are your own person -- but you do not live in isolation and the
motives of who you hang out with *does* matter.

-- 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Chris Keating

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 8:51 AM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've
> seen of her in public. (:
>
> However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that
> you're going to create drama with what you're doing here, and make Lila's
> and WMF's jobs more complicated. I am assuming good faith that you are
> well-intentioned, but I am worried, not so much for your sake but for the
> community's, Lila's, and WMF's.
>

I will just add a little to Pine's comments here.

The way the Wikimedia movement has developed, we've ended up with some
prominent fora that tend to be high-drama and low-effectiveness. Even this
list has a fairly low signal-to-noise ratio most of the time, as in many
threads the people with real insights into a situation tend not to post for
one reason or another, while people with axes to grind do so far more.

If you want to explore the Wikimedia movement then absolutely great, but
there are better ways to do it! Pine's suggestions are a good start - also,
there are various conferences and events, I think there's one in the USA
coming up, then Wikimania in London in a few months.

Also, just a word about free speech. If you or someone close to you is in a
leadership position, then you have responsibilities - either to them, or to
the organisation, or to both. I'm a bit concerned that if conversations
like this one keep going, then when Lila comes out of "watch and listen"
mode, the first thing she's going to hear from this list is a bunch of
questions about you.

I think one of the main learning points for the Foundation over the last
few years is that there is only a certain amount of "oxygen" in the
community for thought and discussion. If I were you I'd do Lila the favour
of making sure that she can use as much of that oxygen as she wants, and
limit the amount you're taking for yourself.

Kind regards, and look forward to meeting you sometime,

Chris

>
> I would like to show you some options for places where the style of
> conversation you are using would be a better fit, where you can ask
> questions and have discussions, and which are less politically sensitive
> than this list is. Of course you are welcome on this list if you have
> cross-wiki suggestions or can't get questions answered elsewhere, and I
> respect your right to free speech, but I would ask you to consider these
> suggestions.
>
> On English Wikipedia, you will find friendly and helpful people at our
> Teahouse. [1] For questions and realtime help you can also visit
> #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC.
>
> If you want to get to know Wikipedians, I suggest that you join local
> volunteer meetups such Wiknic if there is one in your area. In those
> circumstances most people are happy to socialize. [2] If you are able to
> attend WikiConference USA in New York, I think you would enjoy it. [3]
>
> If you want to have electronic conversations that are more chatty and less
> formal than the discussions on this list, I suggest IRC. #wikipedia-en is a
> high profile channel and many of the questions that you asked here could be
> discussed in there. And as I said above, for realtime help you can visit
> #wikipedia-en-help. However, I ask as a personal favor that you don't have
> conversations in #wikimedia-office which is the main WMF channel. I can't
> stop you from talking there any more than I can take away your free speech
> rights, but I think any communications in there from you would create more
> complications.
>
> I feel it's ok for you or any Wikipedian in good standing to talk on WO if
> they want, but engaging in semi-official diplomacy is a very different
> matter, if that's what you're doing (I haven't checked your edits and I
> don't want to). There may come a time when you have the community's trust
> and can act in
>  high-profile ways with the support of the community, but at the moment
> the discussion on this email list tells me that your actions are creating
> complications to the start of Lila's tenure in ways that have me worried.
> To use an analogy, imagine Michelle Obama saying in public that her
> personal opinion is that Barack Obama should have diplomatic talks with
>  or revoke , or
> that she personally has been conducting outreach to  here> without going through the State Department. That would create
> complications for Barack Obama and lots of other people, even though
> Michelle has a right to communicate her views.
>
> I am available to answer questions if you have any for me. You can ask on
> my Meta talk page, on my English Wikipedia talk page, through email, or set
> up a time to meet me on IRC or Skype. I'm sure other participants in this
> discussion would also be willing to talk with you in places other than this
> list.
>
> If I have misunderstood your position please correct me. I appreciate your
> interest in Wikipedia and I hope you will be a net positive to the
> community. (:
>
> Pine
>
> [1] https://en.wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Fæ

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
...
> Others are uncomfortable because the incoming ED has a
> partner who is active in the community, and that is a new thing.

No, churning politics off-wiki and then bringing issues raised
off-wiki on-wiki, is not being active in the community, presuming you
mean the community who actually enjoy contributing to Wikimedia
projects.

> I suggest we set the words aside for the time being and start letting
> our actions speak for themselves.

Yes, good strategy, let's do it.

Apart from a few minutes responding on this email thread, yesterday I
sorted out some "missing" very large images of 19th C. cartoons[1]
which have been part of a pattern of problematic tiffs under
discussion on bugzilla, and today I have been checking up on some
tricky conflicting sources for the Warren Cup article in the hope to
eventually get it to Good Article status regardless of it including a
depiction of anal sex.[2] These are the sort of content based mildly
contentious, but positive, action that everyone likes to see. I'll get
on with them.

Links
1. 
http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/quick_intersection.php?lang=commons&project=wikimedia&cats=British+Cartoon+Prints+Collection%0D%0AGWToolset+Batch+Upload&ns=6&depth=12&max=3&start=0&format=html&redirects=&callback=
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Cup

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

Craig, I was trying to be kind. If you consider that a threat, then I
apologize to you, Pete, and the whole list.

I think at this point words have served us about as well as they ever
will. Some of you don't like the fact that I've participated on
Wikipediocracy. Others are uncomfortable because the incoming ED has a
partner who is active in the community, and that is a new thing. Still
others would like to see less of me and more of Lila. All reasonable
concerns.

I suggest we set the words aside for the time being and start letting
our actions speak for themselves.

Best.
,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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

> Hey what happened to disclaiming any relevant link between the two of you?
> Not exactly consistent with you canvasing for an apology on her behalf. Of
> course it is somewhat alarming that you are suggesting that our new ED
> can't handle robust criticism but I personally prefer to trust the judgment
> of the board and other involved parties.

I would say this if it were about anyone in the community. Talking in
this way behind one's back is disrespectful, and whether we're ED of
the WMF or a passing casual WP surfer, everyone in our community
deserves respect.

I guess we'll all see how she handles criticism soon enough.

,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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread geni

On 24 May 2014 08:24, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
> rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.
>
> If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
> Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's
> a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.
>
> Best.
> ,Wil
>

Hey what happened to disclaiming any relevant link between the two of you?
Not exactly consistent with you canvasing for an apology on her behalf. Of
course it is somewhat alarming that you are suggesting that our new ED
can't handle robust criticism but I personally prefer to trust the judgment
of the board and other involved parties.

-- 
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Fæ

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with
> you if I do audio instead of photos or videos?

Certainly, Commons is massively under-represented with audio files.
Check out my audio projects at

as a comparison.

For Commons issues I suggest first sounding them out with regular
contributors on the Commons Village pump before jumping to "wider"
forums such as this email list.

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Craig Franklin

Look, we have quite enough non-constructive passive-aggressive stuff going
on here without it being added to with thinly veiled threats like this.
 Please stop.

I think the main issue that people have here is that Sue was very private
about her private life, at least in public.  Now we have the polar opposite
of the ED's significant other showing up and, in the eyes of some,
'consorting with the enemy'.  This is a pretty opinionated community and
this sort of thing will raise eyebrows.  Quite a lot of regulars on this
list have a troubled and lengthy history with some of the WO regulars, and
so you're probably going to get more criticism than plaudits for publicly
engaging with them, regardless of how good your intentions are.

To be honest, more than Wil's hanging out with Greg Kohs and the like, I'm
a little more disappointed that there hasn't been much interaction as far
as I can see between Lila and the rank and file volunteers.  The
relationship between volunteers and Sue was stretched at times, and it hurt
the movement, so I hope that Lila is just testing the waters before rolling
up her sleeves and jumping into the sharkpool to meet us :-)

Cheers,
Craig

On 24 May 2014 17:24, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
> rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.
>
> If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
> Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's
> a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.
>
> Best.
> ,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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread ENWP Pine

I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've seen of
her in public. (:

However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that you're
going to create drama with what you're doing here, and make Lila's and WMF's
jobs more complicated. I am assuming good faith that you are well-intentioned,
but I am worried, not so much for your sake but for the community's, Lila's,
and WMF's.

I would like to show you some options for places where the style of
conversation you are using would be a better fit, where you can ask questions
and have discussions, and which are less politically sensitive than this list
is. Of course you are welcome on this list if you have cross-wiki suggestions
or can't get questions answered elsewhere, and I respect your right to free
speech, but I would ask you to consider these suggestions.

On English Wikipedia, you will find friendly and helpful people at our
Teahouse. [1] For questions and realtime help you can also visit
#wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC.

If you want to get to know Wikipedians, I suggest that you join local volunteer
meetups such Wiknic if there is one in your area. In those circumstances most
people are happy to socialize. [2] If you are able to attend WikiConference USA
in New York, I think you would enjoy it. [3]

If you want to have electronic conversations that are more chatty and less
formal than the discussions on this list, I suggest IRC. #wikipedia-en is a
high profile channel and many of the questions that you asked here could be
discussed in there. And as I said above, for realtime help you can visit
#wikipedia-en-help. However, I ask as a personal favor that you don't have
conversations in #wikimedia-office which is the main WMF channel. I can't stop
you from talking there any more than I can take away your free speech rights,
but I think any communications in there from you would create more
complications.

I feel it's ok for you or any Wikipedian in good standing to talk on WO if they
want, but engaging in semi-official diplomacy is a very different matter, if
that's what you're doing (I haven't checked your edits and I don't want to).
There may come a time when you have the community's trust and can act in
high-profile ways with the support of the community, but at the moment the
discussion on this email list tells me that your actions are creating
complications to the start of Lila's tenure in ways that have me worried. To
use an analogy, imagine Michelle Obama saying in public that her personal
opinion is that Barack Obama should have diplomatic talks with or revoke , or that she personally
has been conducting outreach to without going
through the State Department. That would create complications for Barack Obama
and lots of other people, even though Michelle has a right to communicate her
views.

I am available to answer questions if you have any for me. You can ask on my
Meta talk page, on my English Wikipedia talk page, through email, or set up a
time to meet me on IRC or Skype. I'm sure other participants in this discussion
would also be willing to talk with you in places other than this list.

If I have misunderstood your position please correct me. I appreciate your
interest in Wikipedia and I hope you will be a net positive to the community.
(:

Pine

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wicnik
[3] http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Main_Page

___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

>> I just ask for a chance to
>> show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
>> my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
>> that chance?
> ...
>
> Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you
> have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a
> collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons,
> and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative
> experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying
> to help achieve the aims of our projects.

OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with
you if I do audio instead of photos or videos?

> At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer
> rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and
> publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy
> issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the
> Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila
> were hoping for.

FWIW, her title is Executive Director, not CEO. Honestly, I'm less
worried about the impression I'm giving you than your getting to know
the real me. I'm very much looking forward to that.

,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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Fæ

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
...
> I just ask for a chance to
> show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
> my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
> that chance?
...

Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you
have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a
collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons,
and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative
experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying
to help achieve the aims of our projects.

At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer
rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and
publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy
issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the
Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila
were hoping for.

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.

If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's
a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.

Best.
,Wil

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
> one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
> under his skin...
>
> What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a
> point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's
> not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware
> of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or
> is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if
> he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to
> engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she
> decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along
> the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar
> with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they
> "fire" him?? Some job they'd be walking into!
>
> Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up
> with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF
> for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years'
> experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take
> on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the "grease the
> squeakiest wheel" approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can
> chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple
> years.
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> > 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
>> g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

> Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
> one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
> under his skin...

Hi Pete. What are you referring to here?

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

> If this were true, then Wil could have taken part in discussion on
> Wikipediocracy with a throw-away anonymous account to educate himself
> on the culture there. I am sure that Wil and Lila know how to keep an
> internet account anonymous, or they can ask someone on their personal
> network who does know.
>
> To parody a little, but not much, "Hello, I'm the partner of the new
> CEO of the WMF and I would like to ask you about what you think of the
> WMF projects... Oh, please pretend that I have nothing to do with the
> CEO of the WMF." No, that just does not add up.

What would happen if I didn't say it? I'd probably be considered
deceitful for *not* telling people upfront. :) It's worked pretty well
to tell people what they believe they need to know about me from the
get-go and then convince them that I'm my own person with my words and
actions. I can also see some arguments for your approach, however.

> As someone partial, due to the actions of some participants of 'that
> website' to deride my life as a gay man, my view is that Lila is
> actively losing good faith, before she has managed to deliver anything
> for our movement, by not having a word with her partner to stop him
> playing silly and potentially destructive games using her name as if
> he were the charitable "First husband" playing ambassador.

Could you please tell me more about any potentially homophobic
comments that have been made on Wikipediocracy? Here or by email,
whichever you think is most appropriate. My email is w...@wllm.com. I
want no part of any site that practices bigotry.

I think we can settle the whole "'First husband' playing ambassador"
thing. I'm not an ambassador for anybody. I am a person who values his
individuality. I think that's pretty common in the WP community. In
fact, I'm not even legally Lila's husband, so technically I'm not
First anything. :) And that's a-ok with me. I just ask for a chance to
show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
that chance?

> Wil has a right to free speech (in the UK we have similar law, it
> amounts to "meh, you are free to make an arse out yourself"). This
> ensures his right to be free to irretrievably cock up Lila's
> reputation in the eyes of the Wikimedia community's most active and
> productive volunteers.

If the larger WP community believes that my actions and words should
be weighed heavily on Lila as an ED, then that's not about me or
anything I have done. That's about what the community believes makes
for a great leader. I personally think that such an attitude would be
a great injustice to one of the greatest leaders the WMF could hope to
find. But if this is really the way the WP community works, then I
think each and every one reading this should ask themselves: "Is this
the kind of community I want?"

> If Lila is going to be good at managing politics within our movement,
> now would be an excellent time to start demonstrating it, rather than
> pretending she does not know about the games Wil is playing within the
> Wikimedia movement that she is being handsomely paid to support.

I don't know about Lila, but I think a lot of Wikipedians are pretty
much done with the politics. They seem to be more interested in
spending their time working on Wikipedia itself.

Thanks much for the feedback, tho. I'd really appreciate it if you
could get back to me about any prejudice you've encountered here or on
WO. I think it goes without saying that this is definitely *not*
something we want anywhere in our community.
,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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread edward

On 24/05/2014 03:31, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>>"*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".

Thanks :)

>>"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.

(1) This point has already been made, but it bears repeating. If the 
criticism is valid, as you seem to agree, why does the *motive* matter?  
(2) How do you know what the motives are?  Are you a psychologist or a 
criminologist?  My experience of WO is that many of the participants are 
driven by a sense of injustice at perceived mistreatment or unfairness 
on Wikipedia. That's just a speculation of course.

>>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.

This is the case with most protest movements. If enough people think 
something is going wrong, and if they see no way of fixing things 
through 'official channels', then they will find some other place to rally.

>>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.

When the problem involves conflict of interest, i.e. when someone is 
using an anonymous account on Wikipedia to promote some agenda or 
interest, it is obviously very difficult to avoid revealing identity or 
interest - particularly when it involves people massaging articles about 
themselves.  When WO does this in the published articles it makes every 
effort to address the principle involved, rather than the person.

E

___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Pete Forsyth

Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
under his skin...

What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a
point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's
not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware
of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or
is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if
he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to
engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she
decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along
the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar
with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they
"fire" him?? Some job they'd be walking into!

Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up
with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF
for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years'
experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take
on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the "grease the
squeakiest wheel" approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can
chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple
years.

Pete

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> > 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 o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Fæ

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> 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
...

If this were true, then Wil could have taken part in discussion on
Wikipediocracy with a throw-away anonymous account to educate himself
on the culture there. I am sure that Wil and Lila know how to keep an
internet account anonymous, or they can ask someone on their personal
network who does know.

To parody a little, but not much, "Hello, I'm the partner of the new
CEO of the WMF and I would like to ask you about what you think of the
WMF projects... Oh, please pretend that I have nothing to do with the
CEO of the WMF." No, that just does not add up.

As someone partial, due to the actions of some participants of 'that
website' to deride my life as a gay man, my view is that Lila is
actively losing good faith, before she has managed to deliver anything
for our movement, by not having a word with her partner to stop him
playing silly and potentially destructive games using her name as if
he were the charitable "First husband" playing ambassador.

Wil has a right to free speech (in the UK we have similar law, it
amounts to "meh, you are free to make an arse out yourself"). This
ensures his right to be free to irretrievably cock up Lila's
reputation in the eyes of the Wikimedia community's most active and
productive volunteers.

If Lila is going to be good at managing politics within our movement,
now would be an excellent time to start demonstrating it, rather than
pretending she does not know about the games Wil is playing within the
Wikimedia movement that she is being handsomely paid to support.

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,

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
>  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
> he

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 certai

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread MZMcBride

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
 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!=Lila&&Wil!=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.or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Risker

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  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,
> 
>
___
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] 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,

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread geni

On 24 May 2014 00:06, Wil Sinclair  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,

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Nathan

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,

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Steven Walling

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair  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=14&t=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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread David Gerard

On 24 May 2014 00:24, Federico Leva (Nemo)  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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)


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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter

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=14&t=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.wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy