On 12/05/13 02:48, Sue Gardner wrote: > The staff working on the > Wikimedia Foundation wiki have jobs they've got to get done, in support of > the entire movement. If they spend days or weeks needing to persuade a > single community member of the merits of something they want to do on the > Foundation wiki, or if they need to modify their plans extensively to > accommodate the opinions of a single community member, that reduces the > amount of time available for them to do the rest of their work. Which, I > repeat, is in the service of the movement overall.
So it was a response to a particular conflict? > My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who work on > the Foundation wiki have been grateful (and are grateful) for the help > they've gotten from community members in maintaining the Foundation wiki, > and that we hope they'll continue to help us. Let's hope so. But in my experience, stripping titles such as "administrator" from volunteers is an excellent way to get them to leave. It's not really about the technical privileges, these titles are a recognition of good work done, and a symbol of trust, and are one of the few rewards we give to volunteers. Stripping privileges from a volunteer is upsetting, and undermines their core motivation for contributing. So I can appreciate that the conflict needed to be resolved, but I have to wonder whether this was the best way to go about it. -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
