Institutional memory and Institutional knowledge are two subtle and unique
characteristics, sharing knowledge is what we are supposed to be good at
yet internally its our biggest weakness. The WMF would do well to have a
"historian" on staff to document and maintain our movements' history.
On 8/25/2020 4:34 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped working
at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering:
5. The Wikimedia Foundation has not historically done very much in terms
of thorough encyclopedic
Credit for that goes to the inestimable Eugene Eric Kim and the hundreds of
Wikimedians who contributed to it. It still exists I believe, at
strategy.wikimedia.org.
Regards,
pb
Philippe Beaudette
philippe.beaude...@icloud.com
> On Aug 25, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> Thanks
Thanks Philippe. Funny, the minute I hit "send" I thought of you -- I don't
know whether or not it was your idea originally, but the "Wikimedia-Pedia"
that was created during the 2010 Strategic Planning process was probably
the closest thing I've seen to an organized effort to do this.
-Pete
Pete, one thing that I loved about my time at reddit was the existence of a
subreddit called “r/museumofreddit”. It was mandatory reading for every new
hire on my team and every other team I could convince and it was critical to
onboarding me.
It lived to serve just the documentary process
I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped working
at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering:
1. Often, institutional memory is measured in terms of
staff/executive/board turnover; while there has indeed been a very high
rate of turnover at
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 22:36, Strainu wrote:
> 1. Why bundle the changes? The collapsible toolbar could be a useful
> feature in itself, even for those who are firmly against the
> narrow-down content area. It could also be the basis for more radical
> changes, such as a "no distraction mode".
>
În mie., 26 aug. 2020 la 00:03, Amir Sarabadani a scris:
>
> Hey,
> Can you elaborate what happened? if It's public of course. It's hard to
> understand the problem without proper context.
The edits are public, but I don't really want to be specific, as that
would likely derail the discussion.
No, not related in the least.
He's probably talking about a recent situation discussed at this ML where a
WMF employee at T emergency role directed someone complaining of
harassment to the AN/I because they thought it was the appropriate venue.
Amir Sarabadani escreveu no dia terça, 25/08/2020
Hey,
Can you elaborate what happened? if It's public of course. It's hard to
understand the problem without proper context.
Is it https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261133 ?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:52 PM Strainu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of
Hi,
It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional
memory, with the T team taking center stage. It's not really
important what they did wrong, it's minor compared with other faux-pas
they did in the past.
I was wondering though if the organization as a whole has learned
Hey all,
I've asked some technicalities in the feedback page (and will continue
to do so as I test the new look more) but I was wondering about two
things that deserve to be discussed in a larger forum:
1. Why bundle the changes? The collapsible toolbar could be a useful
feature in itself, even
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 14:08, Gnangarra wrote:
> that doesn't mean we don't try to find alternative ways and improve on the
> way we deal with issues
Having observed and researched the working of ANI it became apparent to me
that the unstructured nature of the discussions there allows for
The fact that this problem exists in nearly anywhere is true, from biases
to harasses. The problem is whether or not one actively face it, and if
there are any way that is efficient, secure and unbiased way to treat those
problems without undermining the trust mechanism of volunteers.
And all the
I don't think the approach "we are going to see resistance anyway, so lets
make it a bigger change" has proven to be terribly helpful in the past year
or so.
These layout changes are hard for sure, but there are definitely ways to
bring people on board. The thing is, not every exciting change is
Yaroslav is right it is difficult to wade through every minor diff to see a
pattern and AN/I is incapable of reacting to anything but the extremes,
that doesn't mean we don't try to find alternative ways and improve on the
way we deal with issues
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 19:10, Yaroslav Blanter
In addition, (English Wikipedia) ANI can reasonably well deal with one or
several highly problematic diffs, but very often we have a long pattern
which can result in a long series of diffs, so that each one is
unproblematic or slightly problematic, but all together thay may constitute
a harassment
The whole purpose of harassing someone is to put them under pressure, to
make the victim upset and force them away from editing. Creating a clear list
of problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
impossible during the incident, when all thats desired is to have the
I see.
The English Wikipedia, and most projects in general (from my experience),
are not perfect at handling problems with established editors.
This is to be expected. However, there’s some element of draconian secret
policing present in having a brigade of T employees handling any and all
19 matches
Mail list logo
