Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-09 Thread Balázs Viczián
Imo the lines were said by a member of a board of a chapter in her official
capacity as she was attending a board training paid fully by the global
community (unless she paid everything on her own and never got reimbursed
for anything)

If you keep up with this approach (which will for sure culminate in actions
clearly ignoring/fucking the community) in one day you will reach the
point when the community will say so, then fuck you too.

Obviously not today, neither tomorrow, but when it comes, that day will be
the last day, when you were able to buy free stuff or travel around the
world for free or in short: have money. Until that day comes it is true
that this is not an issue, you can get away with it, 'nuff said.

The main issue here are her solution(s) to problem solving/fulfilling the
mission. Even worse that a handful of people supports it in this thread,
namely a) spending money or b) spending more money. This is very poor/lazy
thinking.

Those having these two only in mind (or as primary solutions), should leave
their chapter positions for more creative people.

Cheers,

Vince

PS: this thread strenghtens my impression [1] that some chapters are rather
breakaway groups than (integral) parts of their local community.

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFuture_of_the_Wikimedia_Conferencediff=5611433oldid=5611349


2014.04.08. 12:21, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com ezt írta:

 Hoi,
 One reason is that the license of Wikidata is questioned by members of the
 Wikidata community.
 Thanks,
  GerardM


 On 8 April 2014 11:27, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
  gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
 
   Hoi,
   From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM
   wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we
   cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find
 the
   same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden.
  
   When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest
  that
   information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer
  part
   of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the
   database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set
  of
   information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of
 the
   data is no longer an issue.
   Thanks,
 GerardM
  
 
  Why are we talking about the license of Wikidata in this thread?
 
  Come to think of it, why are we still talking at all in this thread?
 
 
 
  
  
   On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
  
Gerard,
I think you mean There are organisations that want to share CC-0
information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
license. We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
under a CC-by license, no?
   
O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.
   
Jane
PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other
 members
of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.
   
2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen 
 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
  :
 Hoi,
 Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
 knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of
  what
   we
 do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
 information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the
  opportunity
   to
 do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we
  share
the
 sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with
 Wikidata
   we
 share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.

 Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by
 a
large
 margin.

 There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the
 practices
   that
 realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available
 to
   us.
To
 say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be
 ignored.
There
 are organisations that want to share information with us under a
 CC-0
 license and there are those who want to share information under a
  CC-by
 license. The later can and should be ignored as well.

 However, when I am to argue these points in a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-08 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we
do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to
do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share the
sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we
share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.

Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a large
margin.

There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that
realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us. To
say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored. There
are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by
license. The later can and should be ignored as well.

However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say
that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is
to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a
GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so but
they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska hubert.la...@gmx.at wrote:

 With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the
 problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions
 with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume
 one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the
 basis for their own position.

 Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me
 is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits
 and edits.

 Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos,
 one after another and upload them?

 I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
 explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If this
 has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.

 h
 Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

  Hoi,
 What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??

 You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...

 What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that
 be
 in everyone's benefit??
 Thanks,
   Gerard


 On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
 wrote:

  Ziko van Dijk wrote


   I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in

 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...

  Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during
 a
 public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes
 on
 Meta).

 That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
 that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
 sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person
 is.

 I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
 comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing;
 however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
 chapters and their respective communities.

 Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
 best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not
 sure.


  Tomasz

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
 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
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-08 Thread Jane Darnell
Gerard,
I think you mean There are organisations that want to share CC-0
information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
license. We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
under a CC-by license, no?

O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.

Jane
PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members
of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.

2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
 Hoi,
 Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
 knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we
 do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
 information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to
 do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share the
 sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we
 share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.

 Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a large
 margin.

 There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that
 realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us. To
 say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored. There
 are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
 license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by
 license. The later can and should be ignored as well.

 However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say
 that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is
 to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
 sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
 extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a
 GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
 information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so but
 they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
 Thanks,
   GerardM



 On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska hubert.la...@gmx.at wrote:

 With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the
 problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions
 with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume
 one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the
 basis for their own position.

 Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me
 is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits
 and edits.

 Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos,
 one after another and upload them?

 I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
 explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If
 this
 has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.

 h
 Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

  Hoi,
 What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??

 You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...

 What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that
 be
 in everyone's benefit??
 Thanks,
   Gerard


 On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
 wrote:

  Ziko van Dijk wrote


   I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in

 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...

  Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during
 a
 public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes
 on
 Meta).

 That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
 that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop;
 I'm
 sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person
 is.

 I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
 comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing;
 however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
 chapters and their respective communities.

 Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better
 what's
 best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not
 sure.


  Tomasz

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-08 Thread Tom Morris
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
 I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...

I've said fuck the community a fair few times. And fuck the
foundation and fuck chapter [name]. Generally, all of them under
my breath and without being reported on in the Signpost.

In fact, this whole thread is making me say things like “why the hell
am I still subscribed to this increasingly pointless mailing list?”

Storms in teacups, mountains out of molehills, wikidramas out of
off-the-cuff remarks. Is there not an encyclopedia that needs editing?

--  
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/
-- 
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-08 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM
wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we
cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the
same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden.

When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest that
information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer part
of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the
database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set of
information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of the
data is no longer an issue.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:

 Gerard,
 I think you mean There are organisations that want to share CC-0
 information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
 to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
 license. We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
 under a CC-by license, no?

 O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.

 Jane
 PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
 member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
 right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
 are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
 one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members
 of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
 it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
 the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
 heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.

 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
  Hoi,
  Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
  knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we
  do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
  information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to
  do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share
 the
  sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we
  share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.
 
  Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a
 large
  margin.
 
  There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that
  realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us.
 To
  say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored.
 There
  are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
  license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by
  license. The later can and should be ignored as well.
 
  However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say
  that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is
  to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
  sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
  extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a
  GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
  information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so
 but
  they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
  Thanks,
GerardM
 
 
 
  On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska hubert.la...@gmx.at wrote:
 
  With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is
 the
  problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make
 decisions
  with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then
 assume
  one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are
 the
  basis for their own position.
 
  Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me
  is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by
 edits
  and edits.
 
  Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking
 photos,
  one after another and upload them?
 
  I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
  explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If
  this
  has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.
 
  h
  Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
 
   Hoi,
  What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
 
  You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
 
  What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will
 that
  be
  in everyone's benefit??
  Thanks,
Gerard
 
 
  On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
  wrote:
 
   Ziko van Dijk wrote
 
 
I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said
 in
 
  public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
  criticism...
 
   Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-08 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
One reason is that the license of Wikidata is questioned by members of the
Wikidata community.
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 8 April 2014 11:27, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:

  Hoi,
  From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM
  wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we
  cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the
  same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden.
 
  When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest
 that
  information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer
 part
  of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the
  database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set
 of
  information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of the
  data is no longer an issue.
  Thanks,
GerardM
 

 Why are we talking about the license of Wikidata in this thread?

 Come to think of it, why are we still talking at all in this thread?



 
 
  On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   Gerard,
   I think you mean There are organisations that want to share CC-0
   information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
   to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
   license. We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
   under a CC-by license, no?
  
   O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.
  
   Jane
   PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
   member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
   right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
   are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
   one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members
   of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
   it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
   the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
   heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.
  
   2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
 :
Hoi,
Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of
 what
  we
do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the
 opportunity
  to
do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we
 share
   the
sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata
  we
share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.
   
Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a
   large
margin.
   
There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices
  that
realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to
  us.
   To
say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored.
   There
are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
license and there are those who want to share information under a
 CC-by
license. The later can and should be ignored as well.
   
However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will
  say
that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully,
 it
  is
to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by
 a
GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do
 so
   but
they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
Thanks,
  GerardM
   
   
   
On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska hubert.la...@gmx.at wrote:
   
With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas,
 is
   the
problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make
   decisions
with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then
   assume
one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services
 are
   the
basis for their own position.
   
Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse
 for
  me
is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by
   edits
and edits.
   
Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking
   photos,
one after another and upload them?
   
I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process.
 If
this
has occured, he would not have written 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Fred Bauder
Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything
they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support
just becomes a box to check.

Fred

 This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
 shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...)
 about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as
 expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between
 March 1-2 in London.

 The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
 Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should
 do
 that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community,
 who cares.

 I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
 that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me
 just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
 absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
 immediately.

 Read more at:
 *
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
 *
 http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/

  Tomasz

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,
I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
criticism...
Kind regards
Ziko



Am Montag, 7. April 2014 schrieb Fred Bauder :

 Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything
 they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support
 just becomes a box to check.

 Fred

  This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
  shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...)
  about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as
  expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between
  March 1-2 in London.
 
  The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
  Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should
  do
  that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community,
  who cares.
 
  I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
  that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me
  just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
  absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
  immediately.
 
  Read more at:
  *
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
 
  *
  
 http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/
 
 
   Tomasz
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 ?subject=unsubscribe



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 ?subject=unsubscribe



-- 


Dr. Ziko van Dijk

Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
http://wikimedia.nl

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Chris Keating
As one of the organisers of the workshop, I feel I ought to chime in here.

If I remember correctly, those remarks were made as a passing comment in a
very emotional session about the role of movement organisations. I don't
believe anyone present took them to heart.

Indeed, the vast majority of people at the workshop were Wikimedians who'd
recently been elected to Chapter boards, who have strong roots in the
community and are starting to get to grips with how to run an organisation!

I'd certainly suggest people read Steffen's blog post (even if through
google translate) or indeed the minutes of the workshop, for a bit more
context;

http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Minutes

Regards,

Chris



On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
 wrote:

 This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
 shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...)
 about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as
 expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March
 1-2 in London.

 The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
 Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do
 that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community, who
 cares.

 I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
 that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just
 say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is absolutely
 unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately.

 Read more at:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_
 Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
 * http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-
 ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/

 Tomasz

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Johan Jönsson
2014-04-07 11:46 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl:

 Hello,
 I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...


Hear, hear.

The senitment would be extremely problematic if widespread, of course. But
we don't need a great debate based on one (out-of-context) quote from one
anonymous person.

//Johan Jönsson
--
http://wikipediabloggen.se
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Ziko van Dijk wrote


I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
criticism...


Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a 
public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes 
on Meta).


That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact 
that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; 
I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that 
person is.


I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a 
comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; 
however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some 
chapters and their respective communities.


Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better 
what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, 
I'm not sure.


Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread David Gerard
On 7 April 2014 11:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:

 I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment
 could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it
 would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their
 respective communities.


That translates to OK, I have nothing; however, I'll assert I do anyway.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

David Gerard wrote:


That translates to OK, I have nothing; however, I'll assert I do anyway.


Which of the words from the sentence I wrote require translation for 
you? The idea that there are divisions between chapters and communities 
is not a new one; I personally have seen people mention it in various 
places many, many times.


If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would 
fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.


Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
 If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit
 quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
 Tomasz

Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
publicly and explain what they meant?

If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
who made views like this, while representing our community of
volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
themselves in their own words.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Steffen Prößdorf
Hi Folks,

please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
not harp on this single quote.

Thanks,
Steffen


2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:

  If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit
  quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
  Tomasz

 Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
 publicly and explain what they meant?

 If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
 who made views like this, while representing our community of
 volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
 appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
 demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
 they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
 themselves in their own words.

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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




-- 
Steffen Prößdorf
Treasurer, member of the board
Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge
http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??

You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...

What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be
in everyone's benefit??
Thanks,
 Gerard


On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:

 Ziko van Dijk wrote


  I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...


 Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a
 public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on
 Meta).

 That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
 that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
 sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is.

 I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
 comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing;
 however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
 chapters and their respective communities.

 Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
 best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure.


 Tomasz

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Russavia
I don't believe Tomasz said anything about hanging them and hanging them
high.

But if there are movementarians who hold this point of view, they should be
able to speak up publicly and present that point of view.

I, for one, don't disagree with paid editing, so long as it is inline with
expected community standards.

Having such a person within the chapters who does hold such views is a
great thing (perhaps not the fuck the community part though), and they
should be encouraged to come forward and make their views known.

Whether they are prepared for the tarring and feathering they will receive
at the hands of dedicated movementarians is another matter entirely.
Obviously it is an issue for some, otherwise Steffen wouldn't have blabbed
about it to The Signpost. But no-one wants a repeat of the disgraceful
public hanging that Fae suffered at their hands.

Cheers,

Russavia


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hoi,
 What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??

 You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...

 What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be
 in everyone's benefit??
 Thanks,
  Gerard


 On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:

  Ziko van Dijk wrote
 
 
   I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
  public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
  criticism...
 
 
  Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a
  public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes
 on
  Meta).
 
  That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
  that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
  sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person
 is.
 
  I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
  comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing;
  however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
  chapters and their respective communities.
 
  Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
  best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not
 sure.
 
 
  Tomasz
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  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
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Chris Keating
I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
basis.

This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
out-of-context quotes.

Chris
On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
 organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
 movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.

 As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
 our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
 this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
 workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
 to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
 leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.

 Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
 is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
 our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
 it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
 rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
 take this story on tangents.

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:
  Hi Folks,
 
  please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
  I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
  conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
  opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
  not harp on this single quote.
 
  Thanks,
  Steffen
 
 
  2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
 
   If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would
 fit
   quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
   Tomasz
 
  Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
  publicly and explain what they meant?
 
  If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
  who made views like this, while representing our community of
  volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
  appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
  demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
  they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
  themselves in their own words.
 
  Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Craig Franklin
I agree with Ziko's point entirely here.  The two people who have taken
part in this discussion so far who were present at the time have not given
anything to indicate it was more than a flippant remark made in a stressful
situation.  Not that I agree with the sentiment of course, but I'm glad
that at this meeting a wide variety of views were obviously put forward and
robustly discussed.

I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to
be so anodyne, colourless, and always on message that the occasional
spirited remark results in the Spanish Inquisition?  Certainly, I would
understand why the person that make the remark might decline to come
forward given the relentless hounding that will inevitably occur.  It seems
to me that what is being asked for by some is more than can be reasonably
expected from a human being.  Personally, speaking as a Wikimedia donor and
a member of the community, I prefer to be lead by fallible human beings
rather than robots.

Cheers,
Craig


On 7 April 2014 19:46, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:

 Hello,
 I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
 public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
 criticism...
 Kind regards
 Ziko



 Am Montag, 7. April 2014 schrieb Fred Bauder :

  Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything
  they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. Community support
  just becomes a box to check.
 
  Fred
 
   This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly
   shocking news about the opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian (...)
   about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters as
   expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between
   March 1-2 in London.
  
   The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland,
   Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: if we can buy free knowledge, we should
   do
   that [and] just forget about the communities and Fuck the community,
   who cares.
  
   I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given
   that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me
   just say that the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
   absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
   immediately.
  
   Read more at:
   *
   
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes
  
   *
   
 
 http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/
  
  
Tomasz
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  ?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  ?subject=unsubscribe



 --


 
 Dr. Ziko van Dijk

 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht
 http://wikimedia.nl

 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming
people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz'
request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
immediately.

Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you,
or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was
responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of
fuck the community?

I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward
and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they
can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can
their board.

Links:
1. 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563
Fae

On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
 individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
 basis.

 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.

 Chris
 On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
 organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
 movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.

 As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
 our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
 this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
 workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
 to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
 leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.

 Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
 is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
 our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
 it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
 rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
 take this story on tangents.

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:
  Hi Folks,
 
  please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
  I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
  conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
  opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
  not harp on this single quote.
 
  Thanks,
  Steffen
 
 
  2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
 
   If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would
 fit
   quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
   Tomasz
 
  Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
  publicly and explain what they meant?
 
  If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
  who made views like this, while representing our community of
  volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
  appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
  demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
  they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
  themselves in their own words.
 
  Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Chris Keating wrote:


This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
out-of-context quotes.


I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public 
mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you 
to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort 
to personal attacks.


If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.

What a shameful comment, Chris.

Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Christophe Henner
Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually saying the opposite
of the original meaning.

The discussion was about what are the goals of the Wikimedia
Organizations?. Why do they exist?

If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in
free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to
care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and
make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps
that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make
organizations think a little more about the communities instead of
sheer free knowledge production.

In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take
some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to
speak a lot :() you could say that I said let's disband all Wikimedia
Organizations.

Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the
case here, to change it's true meaning.

No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our
community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we
are all part of that community.

Best,
--
Christophe


On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
 Chris Keating wrote:

 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.


 I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing
 list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to
 elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal
 attacks.

 If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.

 What a shameful comment, Chris.

 Tomasz


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.netwrote:

 Chris Keating wrote:

  This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.


 I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public
 mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to
 adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to
 personal attacks.

 If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.


I call no real Scotsman.

--Martijn Hoekstra


 What a shameful comment, Chris.

 Tomasz


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hi All,

I was not present at this meeting, but gather that it was a weekend that was 
valued by all that attended. As Chris has already indicated, he does not agree 
with the remark and I think that all of us disagree with the remar (and that is 
discounting the fact that the whole statement is taken out of context which 
makes a big difference)

But in the middle of a heated discussion, things get said. Chris has indicated 
that one of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions 
were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. And I agree that I 
would be terrible to break this confidentiality as this would severely limit 
the effectiveness of future sessions within the movement because feel people 
that they cannot be frank. As a movement we have a tremendous challenge ahead 
of us in the coming years, and we need open interaction amongst the different 
entities in order to make progress on these goals. Are we really interested in 
a movement where all volunteer board members are constantly being politically 
correct and cannot misspeak (whereas other community members can?). I for one 
would enjoy an open environment rather than a punishing one which closely 
resembles some of the political environments we read so much about.

Can we assume that the feedback has already reached the person in question (and 
the person probably got more than enough feedback during and after the 
session). Does it really benefit us as a movement to force this person to 
resign or be publicly shamed? 

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees

PS: whenever Christophe speaks I would be likely to cheer, only to realise 
minutes later… “What the #(*$ did I just agree with?” ;)



On 07 Apr 2014, at 13:54, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually saying the opposite
 of the original meaning.
 
 The discussion was about what are the goals of the Wikimedia
 Organizations?. Why do they exist?
 
 If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in
 free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to
 care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and
 make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps
 that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make
 organizations think a little more about the communities instead of
 sheer free knowledge production.
 
 In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take
 some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to
 speak a lot :() you could say that I said let's disband all Wikimedia
 Organizations.
 
 Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the
 case here, to change it's true meaning.
 
 No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our
 community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we
 are all part of that community.
 
 Best,
 --
 Christophe
 
 
 On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
 Chris Keating wrote:
 
 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.
 
 
 I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing
 list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to
 elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal
 attacks.
 
 If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.
 
 What a shameful comment, Chris.
 
Tomasz
 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Russavia
Chris

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
 individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
 basis.


Sounds to me like the Wikimedian version of the Bilderberg Group. Except
Bilderberg don't generally take photos of those present.[1] Is there a list
of participants available at this workshop? Or is everyone who was present
available to see in this photo?

But seriously, Chris, who set these ground-rules? Do you think that having
Bilderberg-like secrecy in the movement is a good thing?

Cheers

Russavia


[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boards_workshop_2014_group_photo.jpg
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Michael Maggs
I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public 
investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on.  I am also saddened 
by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly whether they 
do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third party, but restated 
shorn of all context.

One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch 
hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the 
community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine warfare 
than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission (which we 
all agree on, surely?).  

I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, if 
anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of a 
trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a “philosophy”. 
 

Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be 
anathema to us?  No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely 
self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not 
make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun.

Michael



On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming
 people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz'
 request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
 absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
 immediately.
 
 Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you,
 or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was
 responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of
 fuck the community?
 
 I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward
 and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they
 can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can
 their board.
 
 Links:
 1. 
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563
 Fae
 
 On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
 individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
 basis.
 
 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.
 
 Chris
 On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
 organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
 movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.
 
 As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
 our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
 this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
 workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
 to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
 leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.
 
 Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
 is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
 our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
 it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
 rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
 take this story on tangents.
 
 Fae
 
 On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:
 Hi Folks,
 
 please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
 I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
 conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
 opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
 not harp on this single quote.
 
 Thanks,
 Steffen
 
 
 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
 
 If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would
 fit
 quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
Tomasz
 
 Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
 publicly and explain what they meant?
 
 If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone
 who made views like this, while representing our community of
 volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or
 appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to
 demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person
 they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain
 themselves in their own words.
 
 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
Michael,

Wikimedia UK is in the fortunate position that due to my original work
with Peter on governance, you and all trustees on your board have
signed a trustee code committing them to the Nolan principles. This
makes it obvious that if any of the UK Trustees that made public
statements of this sort (this was a publicly funded workshop with
public minutes) they would be required to resign their position.
Making public personal attacks against community members I would say
could easily be a resigning matter too.

Other chapters are not so fortunate to have such a professionally
created body of bureaucracy.

I am disappointed, for reasons already expressed in this thread.

Fae

On 7 April 2014 13:09, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:
 I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public 
 investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on.  I am also 
 saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly 
 whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third 
 party, but restated shorn of all context.

 One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch 
 hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the 
 community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine 
 warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission 
 (which we all agree on, surely?).

 I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, 
 if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of 
 a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a 
 “philosophy”.

 Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be 
 anathema to us?  No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely 
 self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not 
 make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun.

 Michael



 On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming
 people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz'
 request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
 absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
 immediately.

 Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you,
 or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was
 responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of
 fuck the community?

 I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward
 and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they
 can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can
 their board.

 Links:
 1. 
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563
 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that
 individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable
 basis.

 This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
 about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
 out-of-context quotes.

 Chris
 On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
 organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
 movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.

 As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
 our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
 this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
 workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
 to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
 leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.

 Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
 is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing
 our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about
 it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves
 rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or
 take this story on tangents.

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessd...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:
 Hi Folks,

 please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it.
 I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the
 conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing
 opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do
 not harp on this single quote.

 Thanks,
 Steffen


 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:

 If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would
 fit
 quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Bence Damokos
I am not sure it would qualify as a public statement rather than a sentence
taken and quoted out of context from a closed meeting  - in other words, it
was not made at a public, accessible location, rather at a closed meeting
(with limited places, an entrance fee, etc.). While there are published
notes, the apparent quote is not present in them, and I would not be
surprised if the person in question was merely making a point to foster
debate.

For what its worth, rules like the one at the meeting can in theory foster
open debate on controversial topics (see e.g. the [[Chatham House Rule]])
and we should respect them. I for one would be sad if we were not able to
experiment with new models that foster open debate (while still maintaining
a level of transparency).

Best regards,
Bence


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Michael,

 Wikimedia UK is in the fortunate position that due to my original work
 with Peter on governance, you and all trustees on your board have
 signed a trustee code committing them to the Nolan principles. This
 makes it obvious that if any of the UK Trustees that made public
 statements of this sort (this was a publicly funded workshop with
 public minutes) they would be required to resign their position.
 Making public personal attacks against community members I would say
 could easily be a resigning matter too.

 Other chapters are not so fortunate to have such a professionally
 created body of bureaucracy.

 I am disappointed, for reasons already expressed in this thread.

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 13:09, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:
  I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs
 public investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on.  I am
 also saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state
 publicly whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a
 third party, but restated shorn of all context.
 
  One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that
 witch hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if
 the community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine
 warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission
 (which we all agree on, surely?).
 
  I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said
 that, if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to
 demand of a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as
 a “philosophy”.
 
  Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would
 be anathema to us?  No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely
 self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not
 make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun.
 
  Michael
 
 
 
  On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming
  people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz'
  request: the idea that chapters can fuck the community is
  absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters
  immediately.
 
  Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you,
  or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was
  responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of
  fuck the community?
 
  I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward
  and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they
  can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can
  their board.
 
  Links:
  1.
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A64diff=116374702oldid=116372563
  Fae
 
  On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was
 that
  individual contributions were made on a confidential and
 non-attributable
  basis.
 
  This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry
  about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of
 some
  out-of-context quotes.
 
  Chris
  On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
  organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
  movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case.
 
  As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of
  our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about
  this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that
  workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all
  to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their
  leadership role, from the person that made this public statement.
 
  Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter
  is making public statements 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread eLib Project
Hey all!

As  I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
5 cent:

@Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants... there is no
trade-offpossiblebetween   the   principles for the principles
(Leadership, Honesty, Integrity  Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
Accountability ?!).   That  is,   after   all   the   basic   concept  of
principles  -  that  they  are even followed when you don't want to or
like to. 

@discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
express  her/or  himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
afterwards   -   otherwise  you  just  get  yes-people  who  will  not
participate   or   worse,   tell  you what you want to hear. Why it is
important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because
it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
with   this   reaction  people will filter and you will not only loose
dumb but also intelligent contributions.

@future  (sarcasm  warning):   if   you   do  not  wish  this  sort of
comments,  just  say  so in a  general   sense - YES, it's possible to
get the message across without a  witch/wizard  hunt  and  even CHANGE
the  rules  for  the  next time... learning without burning... how the
world could have looked if this had been used more often...


Cheers,

gego


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Béria Lima

 *@Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
 Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants...*



I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise
of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?

_
*Béria Lima*

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*


On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hey all!

 As  I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
 5 cent:

 @Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
 Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants... there is no
 trade-offpossiblebetween   the   principles for the principles
 (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity  Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
 Accountability ?!).   That  is,   after   all   the   basic   concept  of
 principles  -  that  they  are even followed when you don't want to or
 like to.

 @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
 express  her/or  himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
 afterwards   -   otherwise  you  just  get  yes-people  who  will  not
 participate   or   worse,   tell  you what you want to hear. Why it is
 important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because
 it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
 with   this   reaction  people will filter and you will not only loose
 dumb but also intelligent contributions.

 @future  (sarcasm  warning):   if   you   do  not  wish  this  sort of
 comments,  just  say  so in a  general   sense - YES, it's possible to
 get the message across without a  witch/wizard  hunt  and  even CHANGE
 the  rules  for  the  next time... learning without burning... how the
 world could have looked if this had been used more often...


 Cheers,

 gego


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Steffen Prößdorf
Dear all,

I beg your pardon, that I have quoted this statement in my blog.
As mentioned before, I had never intended to condemn anyone or even expose.

It served me merely to illustrate the various points of view. The fact that
this statement was highly exaggerated and was expressed in a moment of
excitement, should be clear for each by now.

Relating to the terms of the previously agreed-upon rules for this
workshop *(You
are OK to use and share the knowledge you gain, but not to make
confidential details public. So you can say afterwards I know a chapter
had X problem and this is what they did and it did/didn't work. But it
would not be OK to post on an email list afterwards I heard Wikimedia XX
had a treasurer called Joe Bloggs who stole all their money - what a bunch
of idiots.)* [1] I thought it was OK this way. I suppose I should have
been even more carefully.

Regards,
Steffen

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Information#Expectations


2014-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com:

 Craig Franklin, 07/04/2014 13:16:

  I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to
 be so anodyne, colourless, and always on message that the occasional
 spirited remark results in the Spanish Inquisition?


 Dunno, but... reminds me of a certain recent event at Mozilla.
 https://brionv.com/log/2014/04/05/people-should-be-allowed-to-be-wrong/

 Nemo


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




-- 
Steffen Prößdorf
Treasurer, member of the board
Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge
http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
No. You may want to look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life
this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said
let's keep this secret. The exact opposite is true, if you are in a
trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity,
honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions
that you thought would stay in-camera under a gentleman's agreement.
To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK
Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the
higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways
to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.

It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] are accountable for
their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves
to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Calling Tomasz a
troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made
in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer
community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came
forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the
always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they
would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.

In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to
good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in
particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian
well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect
someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of
the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a
duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be
welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for
behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings
or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia
Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get
turned around into how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking
difficult questions.

Links:
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F
2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct

Fae

On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:

 *@Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
 Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants...*



 I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise
 of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
 words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?

 _
 *Béria Lima*

 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
 livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
 construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*


 On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hey all!

 As  I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
 5 cent:

 @Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
 Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants... there is no
 trade-offpossiblebetween   the   principles for the principles
 (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity  Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
 Accountability ?!).   That  is,   after   all   the   basic   concept  of
 principles  -  that  they  are even followed when you don't want to or
 like to.

 @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
 express  her/or  himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
 afterwards   -   otherwise  you  just  get  yes-people  who  will  not
 participate   or   worse,   tell  you what you want to hear. Why it is
 important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because
 it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
 with   this   reaction  people will filter and you will not only loose
 dumb but also intelligent contributions.

 @future  (sarcasm  warning):   if   you   do  not  wish  this  sort of
 comments,  just  say  so in a  general   sense - YES, it's possible to
 get the message across without a  witch/wizard  hunt  and  even CHANGE
 the  rules  for  the  next time... learning without burning... how the
 world could have looked if this had been used more often...


 Cheers,

 gego


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



-- 
fae...@gmail.com 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Russavia
On the other other hand, having any sort of Chatham House Rule in an
organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one
of its core tenets..think about it people..

Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy
Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a
promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the
organisation has no need for any Chatham House Rule.

What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the
context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us
context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?

Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: corrupts the movement by
turning the higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to
find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be
accountable.

Russavia
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread George William Herbert
Way to completely miss the point.

Sometimes, the rule of nonattribution is necessary to foster open exchange of 
views.  Nothing anyone has said disputes that.

If you disagree, disagree before the meeting, not after.


-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

Sent from Kangphone

On Apr 7, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

 On the other other hand, having any sort of Chatham House Rule in an
 organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one
 of its core tenets..think about it people..
 
 Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy
 Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a
 promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the
 organisation has no need for any Chatham House Rule.
 
 What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the
 context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us
 context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?
 
 Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: corrupts the movement by
 turning the higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to
 find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be
 accountable.
 
 Russavia
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Risker
I think this topic has been overblown.  It's not as if anyone on this
mailing list has any right or opportunity to pressure a chapter to remove a
member of their Board - unless those individuals are members of the
specific chapter.  And really, if you're an active member of that chapter,
you should already be aware of the people who are on the Board, and their
general attitudes toward the community - and their definition of what they
consider to be the community they're representing or interacting with.

It's important to remember that there's a huge range in the extent and
nature of relationships between chapters and the editorial communities to
which they are most closely attached.  In some cases, the chapters are made
up almost entirely of active community members from a specific project; in
other cases, membership and voting rights in a chapter are linked to
donations or are wide open to anyone who wants to be a member, whether or
not they are active participants in any WMF project. Even when chapters
actively support editing community initiatives, those initiatives have to
fit within the broader umbrella of the project as a whole.  There are half
a dozen chapters whose members are most closely affiliated with English
Wikipedia, for example, so their ability to affect the broader community is
small.

There are examples on Meta of chapter trustees who do focus on the
separation between the chapters and the editing communities, and describe
where they see the two interfacing; those are public statements made by
individuals, and it's reasonable to respond to those.  I'm not seeing a lot
of benefit in getting out the pitchforks and torches to go after a single
individual for an uncontextualized comment attributed to them.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Chris Keating
Just to clarify that I don't believe Tomasz, the original poster, was
trolling.

You, Ashley, have been doing so spectacularly :)
On 7 Apr 2014 16:50, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 No. You may want to look at
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life
 this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said
 let's keep this secret. The exact opposite is true, if you are in a
 trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity,
 honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions
 that you thought would stay in-camera under a gentleman's agreement.
 To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK
 Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the
 higher ranks into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways
 to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.

 It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] are accountable for
 their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves
 to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Calling Tomasz a
 troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made
 in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer
 community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came
 forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the
 always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they
 would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.

 In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to
 good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in
 particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian
 well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect
 someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of
 the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a
 duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be
 welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for
 behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings
 or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia
 Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get
 turned around into how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking
 difficult questions.

 Links:
 1.
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F
 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct

 Fae

 On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  *@Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
  Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants...*
 
 
 
  I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the
 promise
  of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
  words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
 
  _
  *Béria Lima*
 
  *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
  livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
  construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
 
 
  On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproj...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Hey all!
 
  As  I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
  5 cent:
 
  @Fae:  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  within the spirit of the Nolan
  Principles  to  break  a  promise given to participants... there is no
  trade-offpossiblebetween   the   principles for the principles
  (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity  Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
  Accountability ?!).   That  is,   after   all   the   basic   concept
  of
  principles  -  that  they  are even followed when you don't want to or
  like to.
 
  @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
  express  her/or  himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
  afterwards   -   otherwise  you  just  get  yes-people  who  will  not
  participate   or   worse,   tell  you what you want to hear. Why it is
  important to say something stupid like fuck the community is because
  it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
  with   this   reaction  people will filter and you will not only loose
  dumb but also intelligent contributions.
 
  @future  (sarcasm  warning):   if   you   do  not  wish  this  sort of
  comments,  just  say  so in a  general   sense - YES, it's possible to
  get the message across without a  witch/wizard  hunt  and  even CHANGE
  the  rules  for  the  next time... learning without burning... how the
  world could have looked if this had been used more often...
 
 
  Cheers,
 
  gego
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Carlos M. Colina
I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love 
absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?


Let her air her thoughts. Or has that also become forbidden?

M.

El 07/04/2014 12:16 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:

Ziko van Dijk wrote


I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in
public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
criticism...


Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during 
a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the 
minutes on Meta).


That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the 
fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that 
workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well 
who that person is.


I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a 
comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing; 
however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some 
chapters and their respective communities.


Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better 
what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, 
I'm not sure.


Tomasz

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


--
*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain.

Carlos Manuel Colina
Vicepresidente
A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
RIF J-40129321-2
+972-52-4869915
www.wikimedia.org.ve
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Carlos M. Colina wrote:
I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love 
absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?


Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't 
need that useless bunch of moaning robots!


Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Carlos M. Colina
Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You 
guys are overreacting over it.



M.

El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:

Carlos M. Colina wrote:
I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love 
absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?


Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't 
need that useless bunch of moaning robots!


Tomasz

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


--
*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain.

Carlos Manuel Colina
Vicepresidente
A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
RIF J-40129321-2
+972-52-4869915
www.wikimedia.org.ve
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Michael Peel
I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What 
happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?

Thanks,
Mike

On 7 Apr 2014, at 22:38, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:

 Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You guys are 
 overreacting over it.
 
 
 M.
 
 El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:
 Carlos M. Colina wrote:
 I don't find it deeply disturbing. What, now everybody must love 
 absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?
 
 Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need 
 that useless bunch of moaning robots!
 
Tomasz
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 -- 
 *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
 junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain.
 Carlos Manuel Colina
 Vicepresidente
 A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
 RIF J-40129321-2
 +972-52-4869915
 www.wikimedia.org.ve
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread David Gerard
On 7 April 2014 22:40, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:

 I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What 
 happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?


This year, Fae and Russavia.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Liam Wyatt
On Tuesday, 8 April 2014, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:

What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?

  There used to be intelligent conversation on wikimedia-l? As I remember
it foundation-l was always famous for a seemingly endless supply
of controversy (mostly hyperbole), conspiracy, pedantry and
he-said-she-said petty attacks. I don't think there ever was a 'good old
days', only the protagonists change. Unless that was the point you were
actually making? :-)


-- 
wittylama.com
Peace, love  metadata
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread Hubert Laska
With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is 
the problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make 
decisions with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but 
then assume one for me unacceptable position against that group whose 
services are the basis for their own position.


Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me 
is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by 
edits and edits.


Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking 
photos, one after another and upload them?


I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart 
explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If 
this has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.


h
Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

Hoi,
What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??

You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...

What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be
in everyone's benefit??
Thanks,
  Gerard


On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:


Ziko van Dijk wrote


  I think that a single quote by a unnamed female Wikimedian, said in

public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
criticism...


Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a
public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on
Meta).

That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is.

I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
comment could have been made during a public workshop in passing;
however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
chapters and their respective communities.

Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure.


 Tomasz

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