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

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 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 w...@wllm.com 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 on those sites is tainted with bile
  and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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 petefors...@gmail.com 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 w...@wllm.com 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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 insert hostile 
country here or revoke insert executive order here, or that she personally 
has been conducting outreach to insert hostile country 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.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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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 w...@wllm.com 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com 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
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sound_files_uploaded_by_F%C3%A6
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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread geni

On 24 May 2014 08:24, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com 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=commonsproject=wikimediacats=British+Cartoon+Prints+Collection%0D%0AGWToolset+Batch+Uploadns=6depth=12max=3start=0format=htmlredirects=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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Chris Keating

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 8:51 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com 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
 insert hostile country here or revoke insert executive order here, or
 that she personally has been conducting outreach to insert hostile country
 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.

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread edward


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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread edward

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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 m...@uberbox.org 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 are your own person -- but you do not

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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 w...@wllm.com 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,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Pete Forsyth

On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread David Gerard

On 24 May 2014 22:21, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
 On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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=13t=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 newyorkb...@gmail.com 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread edward


On 23/05/2014 20:21, Wil Sinclair wrote:
I'd love to explain why I participate on Wikipediocracy, as well as on
the Wikimedia projects. I've already explained it to the WO folks. If
you guys are interested, feel free to start another thread asking me
about it. It's OT for this thread, however.


OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?

Edward

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

 OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?

Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.

I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more
comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern
is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in
both environments.

The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to
anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few
times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons
and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say?
The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say
anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that
everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)

Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very
insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there
without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the
concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP
community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked
about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is
another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are
also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to
improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm
not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more
concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively
trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531. Maybe it
would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same
question to understand the greatest concerns in this community.

Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am
not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own
motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional
affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at
keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you
who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on
WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your
professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to
know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct
interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere.
Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some
concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the
people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees
of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to
the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss
anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda
learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that.
Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP
contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am.

I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's
harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be
inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please
respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to
ignore me.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

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=14t=4531. Maybe it
 would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same
 question to understand the greatest concerns in this community.

 Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am
 not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own
 motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional
 affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at
 keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you
 who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on
 WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your
 professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to
 know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct
 interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere.
 Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some
 concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the
 people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees
 of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to
 the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss
 anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda
 learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that.
 Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP
 contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am.

 I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's
 harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
 specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
 the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be
 inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
 while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please
 respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to
 ignore me.

 ,Wil

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread David Gerard

On 24 May 2014 00:24, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not really. Generally people are concerned about
 a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad
 hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian;
 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or
 irrelevant issues.



We're talking about a site that was founded by a failed wikispammer
for the specific purpose of furthering the business of wikispamming,
that continues in this aim, and that has an extensive track record of
stalking and harassment. I have a hard time seeing that as a
legitimate constituency.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Steven Walling

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.

 I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
 And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
 them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more
 comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern
 is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in
 both environments.

 The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
 the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
 I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to
 anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few
 times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons
 and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say?
 The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say
 anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that
 everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)

 Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very
 insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
 accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there
 without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the
 concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP
 community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked
 about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is
 another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are
 also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to
 improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm
 not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more
 concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively
 trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531. Maybe it
 would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same
 question to understand the greatest concerns in this community.

 Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am
 not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own
 motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional
 affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at
 keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you
 who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on
 WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your
 professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to
 know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct
 interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere.
 Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some
 concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the
 people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees
 of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to
 the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss
 anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda
 learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that.
 Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP
 contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am.

 I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's
 harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
 specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
 the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be
 inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
 while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please
 respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to
 ignore me.


I don't think you're going to find that anyone thinks you don't have a
right to free speech. For historical context here: on this mailing list
very very few people have ever been banned or put on moderation. It takes a
huge amount of bad behavior to get moderated on Wikimedia mailing lists.

The same culture persists on Wikipedia and most other Wikimedia projects.
The many Wikipedia discussion spaces and the many Wikimedia mailing lists
are extremely open environments where you can see people expressing a wide
variety of perspectives and ideas on how to run the projects. We often get
criticized for not strictly enforcing our civility guidelines/policies.
Many might say we swing too far toward tolerating blatantly rude but
otherwise intelligent/insightful participation.

I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really
the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself
is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

 Not really. Generally people are concerned about
 a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad
 hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian;
 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or
 irrelevant issues.

 Nemo

Hi Nemo, thanks for the feedback!

RE: 2) I'm not sure what you mean by people. Has this been discussed
elsewhere? I doubt that everyone on this list shares your viewpoint on
these issues. Is it a particular group that you're referring to?

RE: a) I haven't heard your full perspective on Wikipediocracy, and
I'd like to hear more. I honestly don't know if this is the right
forum to discuss it or not. Do you know of a better one? Would you
rather take this offline? Generally speaking, I prefer to discuss
things in forums where others can benefit.

In any case, please help inform me one way or another. Talk to you soon.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

 I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really
 the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself
 is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the
 project. Wikipediocracy is where people go to gossip and troll,
 particularly if they are banned and thus can't participate on Wikipedia
 anymore.  If you're really interested in Wikipedia culture, Wikipedia is
 still a pretty large, rambling, and open conversation space where you can
 meet actual contributors. ;-)

 Steven

Hi Steven. Yes, I'm trying to get more involved in all the projects.
Frankly, there's a lot more to read and get checked off since the last
time I contributed. :)

Have you gone to Wikipediocracy lately? There was a thread where they
asked who has been banned or indef blocked, and I believe something
like 2/3 of the people who replied were editors in good standing. In
fact, some of the more active users on this list and well respected
members of the community are also active on WO.

I'm not suggesting that people on this list should get active on WO.
The trash talk is not for the faint-of-heart. I actually wish that
many of the issues they discuss over there were discussed more over
here; I have looked in to many of them using secondary sources
(usually on WP itself), and they seem to be very valid concerns with
suggestions that may help address- or at least start a discussion
about- some of the biggest challenges facing WP. I can post the list
of concerns (without the trash talk, of course) that we've put
together on WO in this forum, if that would help you get a better idea
of what is going on over there.

Would you like to help me get to know more about the community? My
talk page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wllm; we can
talk more about newb stuff over there.

Thanks!
,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread geni

On 24 May 2014 00:06, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

  OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?

 Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.


Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active
wikipediocracy memeber?


 I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.

And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
 them.


You know where 4chan is I assume.

The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
 the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
 I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to
 anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few
 times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons
 and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say?
 The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say
 anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that
 everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)


Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most
compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally
illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text)


 Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very
 insightful people.


Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. We
are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by thousands
of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against
whatever the internet can throw at them.



 If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
 accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there
 without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the
 concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP
 community.


Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it
what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement?



 It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked
 about Child Protection Policies, for example.


Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on
wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that I'm just
asking what the current policies are. lack a certain credibility.




 Harassment Policy is
 another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums.



The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives.



 Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech.


I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to free
speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is
pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but
that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and
your government.



 I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better.


This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't for
getting to know people.



 It's
 harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
 specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
 the meantime, I'll continue asking questions,some of which may be
 inconvenient.


Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this
mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and
are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that can't
be dealt with through the usual project level channels.


 Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
 while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P


So not an editor?


-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

 I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks
 Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his
 wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger
 approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the
 projects.

Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated
with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly
don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues.

I understand your point, but these happen to be the issues that I'm
interested in. For example, I'm a father. I want my son to be able to
use Wikipedia and all the other projects. I'm not going to paste any
links to salacious content on Commons in to this thread, but suffice
it to say that many parents might be concerned about some of the
content that's up there now. And that's A-OK with me- I'm not down
with censorship- it just means that Commons is not a site for my
children. But there are solutions that don't involve censoring Commons
that would make it OK for my children to participate in such a
service. I'd like to discuss this stuff, and I can on WO. Is it OK to
discuss it here?

 Wil - the aversion to Wikipediocracy doesn't come from the mocking or trash
 talking. You haven't experienced the history of that site (and its
 predecessor) or the regular crowd there. Many of them are perfectly fine.
 Some of them have done some pretty seriously fucked up things, and some
 others have made themselves a persistent nuisance for no better reason than
 that they can. They have certainly exposed some major scandals, and brought
 insightful commentary to knotty problems. But please understand that those
 who choose to avoid them aren't simply too thin-skinned to take a critical
 comment or a bit of strong language.

Well, despite these past experiences, my own experience has been
pretty good (- the trash talk). A lot of interesting things are
brought up over there. I'm really wondering if everyone might just be
more comfortable discussing them on the Wikimedia mailing list. It's
the issues and constructive people on WO that I value, not the site
itself.

 Lastly, standard Internet comment on free speech: Your legal right to free
 speech is not a protection against criticism or a limit in any other way on
 what others can say to or about you.

Right. But why do you mention this?

Again, I'm looking for people to help me understand what's going on
here. Would you be one of those people?

Thanks!
,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

 Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active
 wikipediocracy memeber?

Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the
question that who asked it.

 You know where 4chan is I assume.

No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it?

 Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most
 compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally
 illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text)

I agree this is a bit confusing. I don't mean it in a legal sense-
which one might well argue that's the only sense it has- but in a more
social sense. I ask that if you don't like what I'm doing or saying,
that you take it out on me by excising your own right to free speech
by criticizing me, my actions, and my words- not on Lila through WP
politics.

 Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. We
 are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by thousands
 of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against
 whatever the internet can throw at them.

Yeap. It's my opinion. And I also think that Wikipedia is an amazing
achievement. Congrats and thanks to all of you!

 Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it
 what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement?

Sorry, what do you mean by breath interaction?

 Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on
 wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that I'm just
 asking what the current policies are. lack a certain credibility.

Ah. Sorry. I was referring to the questions I asked on this list.
After discussing it there, I wanted to figure out what the current
policies were from the source. It was pretty hard to track down
everything on WP and WM, so thanks everyone for all the links! Do you
have the link to that thread? Maybe we should post it so that people
can see what you're talking about.

 The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives.

Are you saying that I should discuss it there instead?

 I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to free
 speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is
 pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but
 that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and
 your government.

Sure. I may not have used the right word. My apologies. I meant,
please don't hold my words and actions against Lila in any way. Feel
free to hold me to them, tho. :)

 This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't for
 getting to know people.

Ah. I guess I'll look for other places to get to know people. I'm
really sorry to have bothered you here.

 Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this
 mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and
 are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that can't
 be dealt with through the usual project level channels.

Yeah. It sounds like I really just barged in to the wrong place. Doh!

 So not an editor?

Actually, I'm editing some. I'm about to publish an article about the
modular sofa in the WMF office. It happens to be among my favorite
furniture designs, and now I've got a great pic to use in the article.
In addition, I plan to add some audio loops that I have made over the
years doing electronic music to Commons. It would be really cool for
people to have completely free loops to use in applications like
Garage Band and FL Studio. Stay tuned!

I guess I'll see y'all around somewhere else.
,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

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 w...@wllm.com wrote:

  Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active
  wikipediocracy memeber?

 Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the
 question that who asked it.

  You know where 4chan is I assume.

 No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it?

  Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most
  compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally
  illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text)

 I agree this is a bit confusing. I don't mean it in a legal sense-
 which one might well argue that's the only sense it has- but in a more
 social sense. I ask that if you don't like what I'm doing or saying,
 that you take it out on me by excising your own right to free speech
 by criticizing me, my actions, and my words- not on Lila through WP
 politics.

  Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point.
 We
  are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by
 thousands
  of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against
  whatever the internet can throw at them.

 Yeap. It's my opinion. And I also think that Wikipedia is an amazing
 achievement. Congrats and thanks to all of you!

  Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it
  what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement?

 Sorry, what do you mean by breath interaction?

  Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on
  wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that I'm just
  asking what the current policies are. lack a certain credibility.

 Ah. Sorry. I was referring to the questions I asked on this list.
 After discussing it there, I wanted to figure out what the current
 policies were from the source. It was pretty hard to track down
 everything on WP and WM, so thanks everyone for all the links! Do you
 have the link to that thread? Maybe we should post it so that people
 can see what you're talking about.

  The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives.

 Are you saying that I should discuss it there instead?

  I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to
 free
  speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is
  pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but
  that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and
  your government.

 Sure. I may not have used the right word. My apologies. I meant,
 please don't hold my words and actions against Lila in any way. Feel
 free to hold me to them, tho. :)

  This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't
 for
  getting to know people.

 Ah. I guess I'll look for other places to get to know people. I'm
 really sorry to have bothered you here.

  Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this
  mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and
  are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that
 can't
  be dealt with through the usual project level channels.

 Yeah. It sounds like I really just barged in to the wrong place. Doh!

  So not an editor?

 Actually, I'm editing some. I'm about to publish an article about the
 modular sofa in the WMF office. It happens to be among my favorite
 furniture designs, and now I've got a great pic to use in the article.
 In addition, I plan to add some audio loops that I have made over the
 years doing electronic music to Commons. It would be really cool for
 people to have completely free loops to use in applications like
 Garage Band and FL Studio. Stay tuned!

 I guess I'll see y'all around somewhere else.
 ,Wil

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wllm and I see you
have fewer than 50 edits to articles, and the last two are (minor) edits
to your partner's article. I'm pretty worried about what that says.

I'm not sure you're someone who wants to be involved in Wikimedia. Not
yet, anyway. There's a concern that you're simply someone whose partner
just got a job as the head of the Wikimedia Foundation and you want to dig
into the drama and other juicy parts. There's a concern that you're not
here to contribute Wiktionary entries or Wikisource transcriptions or
Wikipedia articles or other free educational content. Or perhaps put
another way, you have 110 posts to Wikipediocracy and you've been
registered there since May 2014. Meanwhile you have 79 total edits to the
English Wikipedia and you've been registered there since July 2006. This
is absolutely not a means of wiki-dick measuring or editcountitis, I'm
just looking at what you've been saying versus what you've been doing and
how it might affect both perceptions and the future reality.

These issues are swirling around in my head. Wikimedia is unusual, I
realize, but nowadays every time I hear about someone's partner getting
(overly) involved in that someone's work, I can't help but think of both
GitHub and its recent issues (real-life) and the relationship on House of
Cards (fiction). Real life and popular culture have their influence on
us, of course. :-)

Both of these (GitHub + House of Cards) are obviously very extreme
examples, but given your (Wil) recent hyper-involvement, the juxtaposition
of it with your partner's lack of involvement, your on-wiki track record
(few substantive edits or involvement... and you've been editing your
partner's article?), and your off-wiki track record (Wikipediocracy and
here), I can't help but wonder what your role is here. I'm not sure the
Wikimedia Foundation has ever had or ever should have a consort.

Are you acting as a surrogate for your partner in forums that she doesn't
have time or inclination to participate in herself? Is this a good cop/bad
cop type of situation? I'm still not sure what to think. I imagine there
members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees that also still
aren't sure what to think. I hope the Board is paying close attention.

You seem to be fairly self-aware and proactive about combating the notion
that you have any influence over the Wikimedia Foundation, while
simultaneously wishing (I'm a father and I want my kid...) to someday
make big changes to Wikimedia and its policies. It's a mixed bag around
here. It's very difficult to tell if you'll be a blessing or a curse.

I've read your replies and I understand what you're saying (succinctly
summarized by you as ,Wil!=LilaWil!=WMF), but what you're saying and
what your actions are saying seem to be in contrast. If you want to get
involved with Wikimedia, by all means, that would be great. But getting
involved means contributing to free educational content and the
surrounding movement. All you have to do is be bold and just click edit,
as they say. Until then, there will be a sizable contingency watching and
waiting for what will come of the decision to appoint your partner as
Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation and what her role and yours
mean to the future of Wikimedia.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

 I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has
 held one of the most public position of authority on the English
 Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some
 day).

Thanks. I appreciate any advice.

 Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a
 diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes
 insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects.
 On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led
 to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of
 the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the
 movement's gaffes.

I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd
like to find out as much as I can about the movement.

 This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration
 Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to keep an ear
 to the ground as it were.

 The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation.  The
 vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a
 desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing
 wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite,
 revenge or simple outright malice.  It is no coincidence that the more
 prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the
 on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the
 malcontent.  The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in
 their investigations is because they are driven by an obsessive need
 to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no
 regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries.
 Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to
 harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in
 the projects.

Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems
that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution,
but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it
important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm
trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than
the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there,
too, for the reasons you've mentioned above.

 (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of
 private boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level
 of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so
 what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on
 those sites).

Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very
graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the
members further questions about potential threats to my family once
Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly
productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I
don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to
enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have
you ever been on those boards?

 The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile
 and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly.  You
 may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation,
 concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found.  You
 can't.  It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect
 you.

Well, we'll have to see how I fare. It certainly hasn't bothered me so
far. For that matter, some of the less-than-friendly responses on this
list haven't bothered me either. I've been told many times that I'm
persistently positive. ;)

 Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to
 be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but
 that's a side effect of their effort to dig up dirt to throw at their
 enemies.  In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will
 reach mainstream venues soon enough if it was legitimate.

But what if this problem weren't discovered and fixed? Couldn't it
turn in to a larger problem down the road? If we all work on our
problems in good faith, a few inevitable mistakes like we've seen in
the past won't matter; the positive news should far outweigh the
negative.

 So yeah.  You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those
 venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the
 movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a
 very bad idea.

 -- Marc

Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to participate there,
because it happens to work for me. I realize it's not for everyone.
For example, with all the trash talking on there, it certainly isn't
for Lila. As I've mentioned, we are two *very*

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy