There's been a long-term conflict with volunteers & staff on wikimediafoundation.org. As a user, I understand. Each staff member likes to keep everything their way. They frequently revert changes (take a look at the discussion and user talk pages, especially for MZMcBride) on 'staff authority'. This is a logical next step against these users (most likely MZ) so there's no conflict.
Is this a bad thing? Most likely not. Is the reason behind it a bad thing? Yes. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM, K. Peachey <p858sn...@gmail.com> wrote: > (Inline comments most likely, So shoot me) > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > … > > But, my understanding is also that occasionally volunteers have > overridden > > decisions made by staff on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I don't think > > that's ever been a huge problem: > > … > > Can you expand on this? I haven't really involved in foundationwiki > and I'm not going to go check all the edits for this, But this seems > like a kindly odd-shaped argument in my view. (The only time I was > involved with a staff-vol spat on wmfwiki, is when the staff member > decided the to need to take it to another wiki and then onto IRC as > well, where I and others had to bug staff members to find out whom > they were reporting to) > > I highly doubt volunteers are just "randomly" undoing edits of staff > "just because", We should be looking at the underlining issues behind > this, with what they are trying to fix and improving the workflow of > staff and volunteers. Just /randomly/ revoking seems counter-proactive > and detrimental to this. > > > … > > So I would say this: > > > > This decision is not about "the community" versus "the WMF." This > decision > > is about the WMF staff, and making it possible for them to do their work > on > > the WMF wiki with some reasonable degree of efficiency and effectiveness. > > How many staff members that have jobs that rely on editing > foundationwiki? I did a quick scan of the last ~1000 or so edits and > really couldn't see any examples that stood out, If a volunteer > changes a staff edit, Yes it should be looked at but there is > generally a good reason (I've seen plently of staff members editing > other wikis that are clueless about the wiki world and people have > been fixing up their edits), And just removing admin rights doesn't > seem to have anything to do with that at all, Because the volunteers > can still edit (afaik the only rights they really loose are delete and > protect now) > > > … > > This decision clarifies roles-and-responsibilities… > > Not really, It was done "randomly" and at the end of a Friday when > most of the foundation stops working for the weekend, with lack of > meaningful communication to those involved (or in some cases, > communication at al), Personally it leaves more questions than > anything. > > > … > > Personally, I feel like > > we're moving into a period now in which things are getting clearer. We > > don't pay staff to edit the projects: > > I know at least one staff on a project, that has a bit to do with > there work, and has been directed to append "staff" to all their edit > summaries. > > -Crazed ramblings out, > Peachey > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
