> I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has > held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English > Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some > day).
Thanks. I appreciate any advice. > Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a > diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes > insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects. > On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led > to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of > the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the > movement's gaffes. I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd like to find out as much as I can about the movement. > This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration > Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear > to the ground" as it were. > > The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The > vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a > desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing > wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, > revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more > prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the > on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the > malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in > their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need > to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no > regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. > Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to > harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in > the projects. Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution, but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there, too, for the reasons you've mentioned above. > (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of > "private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level > of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so > what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on > those sites). Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the members further questions about potential threats to my family once Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have you ever been on those boards? > The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile > and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You > may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation, > concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You > can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect > you. Well, we'll have to see how I fare. It certainly hasn't bothered me so far. For that matter, some of the less-than-friendly responses on this list haven't bothered me either. I've been told many times that I'm persistently positive. ;) > Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to > be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but > that's a side effect of their effort to dig up "dirt" to throw at their > enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will > reach "mainstream" venues soon enough if it was legitimate. But what if this problem weren't discovered and fixed? Couldn't it turn in to a larger problem down the road? If we all work on our problems in good faith, a few inevitable mistakes like we've seen in the past won't matter; the positive news should far outweigh the negative. > So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those > venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the > movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a > very bad idea. > > -- Marc Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to participate there, because it happens to work for me. I realize it's not for everyone. For example, with all the trash talking on there, it certainly isn't for Lila. As I've mentioned, we are two *very* different people. I'm looking forward to working with you on WP, tho. I'll try to drop by your talk page to say Hi soon. Ta's! ,Wil _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
