> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Marc Riddell<[email protected]> > wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddell<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Try evasive. >>>>> >>>> on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. >>>>> >>>> "Assume good faith" in this Project has come to mean "Don't ask questions". >>>> That era is finally over. >> >> on 8/12/09 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> That era never existed. There have always been people prepared to ask >>> difficult questions and demand answers. It is actually possibly to ask >>> such questions while still assuming good faith. It is also possible to >>> avoid asking such questions and still assume bad faith by your >>> actions. In other words, your interpretation of "assume good faith" or >>> what it has meant in the past, is overly simplistic. >>> >>> A fuller description of the realities of AGF is here: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith >>> >> Think about it, Carcharoth, you are referencing the very thing I am >> challenging.
on 8/12/09 9:47 AM, Carcharoth at [email protected] wrote: > > It was a link to ensure that people here had actually read the current > page. Why do you think I was referencing it? > >> More to the point of this thread, what do you think about the condition of >> the Project's culture as far as how people are being treated is concerned? > > It varies depending on where in the project you are active and who you > are interacting with. I don't think you can generalise completely > here. I've always thought there has been a strong undercurrent of > BITE-y behaviour at controversial pages, a general lack of leadership > and improvement in some controversial areas, a lack of learning > lessons from the successes, some elements of OWN-ership in > out-of-the-way places, and too much overt politics and personal > grudges being played out in something akin to a soap opera at times. > But I also think people miss the productive areas and focus on the > high-profile areas where things are less ideal. A kind of selection > bias - remembering the bad stuff and forgetting the good stuff. In > many cases, I think too many people try and get involved, and things > deteriorate from there. > We, at least, seem to agree on most things, Carcharoth :-). Two words in your message state what is the main, insidious problem with the Project's culture: "It varies." To be fully productive, to reach its greatest potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary. To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus on that: the work. They cannot be constantly looking over their shoulder, or live with the anxiety that an unstable, unpredictable workplace can produce. And the old party-liners - those who have "led" by insinuation and not consensus - can blow all the smoke they want at the messengers, but the message is still there loud an clear. Marc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
