[Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

2019-06-16 Thread Ad Huikeshoven
We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves. Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

2019-06-16 Thread Vi to
Honestly I cannot imagine a functional Wikipedia citing itself. Such Wikipedia would be so easy to trick. Vito Il giorno dom 16 giu 2019 alle ore 16:54 Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source > is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

2019-06-16 Thread Nathan
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven wrote: > > > The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They > have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons. > > Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not sure the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

2019-06-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, There is a picture of Jimmy Wales giving a talk at a Wikimania explicitly talking about the situation that is here being considered. A person can be a wonderful editor and a toxic personality. What is happening is not new, it is coming to a head. When you, the English Wikipedia "community"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

2019-06-16 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
How is banning an user for 1 year for secrete reasons a "bold step"? What's the educative value of it? How does it advance any of those strategic objectives you mention there? Paulo Ad Huikeshoven escreveu no dia domingo, 16/06/2019 à(s) 22:03: > We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

2019-06-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Ask yourself why you do not get it as you describe them as "noisy". There is a photo of a presentation at the London Wikimania going round that describes it well. It is a long time coming and the chickens have come home to roost. Indeed they are not learning the appropriate lessons but they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

2019-06-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, It is not so much Wikipedia that is failing, it is the Wikipedia "business as usual" attitude that is failing. The challenge we face is now that we know and expect that things are to change, how do we introduce change and steer it in a way where people feel less threatened by the usual

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

2019-06-16 Thread Mister Thrapostibongles
Dear all, The discussion triggered by recent WMF T actions has tended to focus on the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t talk and those who talk don't know). So I though it might be helpful to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

2019-06-16 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source is indicative of Wikipedia being a failure. On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 14:18 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > The discussion triggered by recent WMF T actions has tended to focus on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

2019-06-16 Thread Todd Allen
I think it's a good question. The first thing, I think, is to regain the community's trust, which has been very badly damaged at this point. I only see one way for them to do that, and that is to back off, sooner rather than later. Ensure the community that this will not happen again, at least