Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement to leave the Foundation

I find the disbanding of the Community Engagement department at WMF to be quite concerning. I will go so far as to say that I view it as a mistake that will have negative impacts well into the future. For one thing, the structure of an organization is in some sense a statement of priorities. I bel

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

"I think we all generally endorse incremental improvements, instead of drastic overhauls." Um, that is clearly not true, since otherwise, for example, the original poster would not have sent out his message. For readers, I think many, if not most, would want a look and feel that works for them, a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

I share the time concerns that Pine and Todd addressed. But my larger concern is about the purpose of this next community conversation. You say that the core team will summarize the community input, and then the community will have a week to "suggest changes to the posted summary so that it accurat

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: "Movement"

[From my comments in the rebranding survey] "Movement" Please stop calling us a "movement". I am an active Wikipedia contributor, but I do not feel part of a movement. Know that I feel excluded when we are referred to as a movement. I would guess that most Wikimedians do not consider themselves p

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia

[From my comments in the rebranding survey] Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia Our overall community centers around the current Wikimedia concept, not Wikipedia. Naming the whole from one its parts is ambiguous, confusing, and disrespectful to non-Wikipedia projects. The majority of the population of the Un

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: Name of WMF

[From my comments in the rebranding survey] Name of WMF To me a trust implies one party relegating authority over a resource to a second party, who is expected to manage it well, and return it at some point to the first party or a third party. I do not see the WMF's role as including such as a no

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative:: Other

[From my comments in the rebranding survey] Other "We network around our best-known brand to connect the movement together". That feels like marketing-speak. It is unclear what you are trying to communicate. I do not think that contributors of non-WP projects want to "network" around Wikipedia.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

"but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey now" This is preposterous and incredibly disrespectful to the community. It is not methodologically sound to continue a biased survey. If the Board and WMF truly want a methodologically sound survey, they wou

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

I for one very much appreciate that the moderators put Dan on moderation. I support sanctions for insulting and rude behavior. Peter--if you are looking for exact, quantitative criteria, you aren't going to get it. This is about impact of communication on the receiver, not specific words used by th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

To expand on the last part of my previous post, one of the things that Peter and other posters are doing that is problematic in my eyes is phrasing their opinions as fact. It is quite clear to me why Dan was put on moderation. So it is a false statement to say that "this is patently unclear". I bel

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day

To me, this award is reaching well beyond the scope of what the Wikimedia community should be doing. It does not, to me, align with our Movement Strategy's recommendations nor their initiatives

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft

I share many of the same concerns others have raised. However I did want to say that I appreciate the time and effort that Nat and Lorenzo put into writing the detailed message they sent, and the time and energy it will take to read responses and possibly respond to them. That said, I have a r

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results

Chris - Please don't assume that you speak for the Wikimedia community overall. I actually find your email much more objectionable than any of Victoria's messages. I do not see Victoria's emails as undermining the work of WMF, nor of WMF's relationship with its volunteers and its partners. I