Wikimedia has a problem right now, and in the absence of any effective
intervention, it appears to be escalating, not receding.
The problem, in a nutshell: Wil Sinclair, the partner of Wikimedia's new
Executive Director Lila Tretikov, has taken strong, even radical positions
on what is needed for Wikipedia's future well-being; and owing (by all
accounts, unintentionally) to his connection to her, his views are
receiving a much higher degree of attention than they would otherwise, and
having significant impacts on our community. Lila, whose name and position
are a key ingredient in the notoriety and influence Wil has so quickly
gained -- and who is therefore in a uniquely responsible and uniquely
influential position in this matter -- has made only one public statement
on the matter, stating that she intends to do nothing about it.[1] But this
is a problem that needs to be addressed.
As Milos Rancic has said, "Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago."
The issues he's raised, by and large, are ones that have been widely
discussed many times; we see people bring them up often, and they generally
don't get much traction or lead to 100+ comment discussion threads.
The key difference, I am confident, is best exemplified with the first
words Wil ever spoke on this list: "I'm Wil Sinclair, Lila Tretikov's
significant other."[2] Regardless of his intentions, his introductory
message to this list garnered "welcome" messages from three WMF staff, and
also from three others, and many people (as I have confirmed in many
offline conversations) made a mental note that here was somebody it would
be worthwhile to keep on the radar. These 6 prompt messages foreshadowed
the disproportionate amount of attention he would receive in the coming
weeks. I believe this unusual level of attention derived almost entirely
from his connection to Lila. (I don't know any way to prove that, but if
any longtime subscribers think the attention he got was typical of a new
list contributor without Wikimedia experience, I'd be interested to know.)
Wil soon parlayed that popularity into other forums. He's now had extensive
discussions on Wikipedia (WP), where 166 of his 400 edits are to his own
User Talk page;[3] and Wikipediocracy (WO)[4] where he's posted 283
messages in maybe a dozen topic threads; and relaunched his personal
blog.[5] His blog's stated goal is to end what he calls the "Wiki War"
between WP and WO; in the 10 days since he launched it, he's published 3
blog posts, all on this topic, and collected about 70 comments. He also
launched a petition on change.org,[6] calling for better treatment of
(arguably) English Wikipedia's most notorious banned user.
So although he is no longer posting multiple messages per day on this
particular email list, his daily efforts to shape the direction of the
Wikimedia movement has not slowed down.
This is true of many dedicated Wikipedians, of course; but in this case, he
is getting a disproportionately high level of attention from influential
people. His user talk page contains 25 comment threads full of advice from
Wikimedia Trustees, longtime Wikipedians, former ArbCom members,
Wikipedians in Residence, staff and board of affiliated organizations, etc.
By contrast, I have students and clients who have made more edits, over
longer periods of time, who have received little more than a {{welcome}}
message on their page. Wil, or his activities, have also ended up in
extensive discussions on Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' user talk page,
most recently here.[7]
This level of influence is, to my eyes, clearly a function of his
connection to Lila. Not exclusively -- he has of course demonstrated a
knack for presenting himself in a way that attracts attention -- but his
connection to her is a vital ingredient in his success.
But I'd like to get back to how he has used that influence. He has focused,
as far as I can tell, almost exclusively on trying to stimulate discourse
and reconciliation between the Wikimedia and Wikipediocracy communities.
For those who are not familiar with Wikipediocracy: I am not one of the
people who would paint it as "bad" with a broad brush. It's a tremendously
active forum dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and many
well intentioned people say many useful things there. However, it is also a
place that where *truly* mean-spirited and damaging things are sometimes
said, and are frequently allowed to remain indefinitely.
An example, drawn from the recent controversy, may help:
A couple days ago, a regular, anonymous WO participant -- who has benefited
from many friendly exchanges with Wil -- had the following to say about a
longtime Wikipedian (who's not active on Wikipediocracy, to my knowledge)
using their full given name: "[name elided], you're a cunt...You are the
worst kind of coward" and then insults this person's physical appearance.
Some forum participants objected to this comment,[8] and suggested it might
be removed, but to date it hasn't been. Wil responded with light,
good-natured scolding.[9]
While we can all agree that discourse in Wikimedia spaces can be
problematic, I do think that a vulgar, direct, personal attack like this --
especially launched from behind a veil of anonymity, addressed to a
person's full name -- would generally not be tolerated here. So there is at
least one good argument in favor of maintaining some distance between
Wikimedia and WO.
I wouldn't say reconciliation between the WP and WO communities is
necessarily a bad goal, but it is most certainly a *delicate* area. And Wil
has exhibited, repeatedly and even explicitly, that delicacy is not his
thing. His impact is, of course, hard to measure, as there are many
judgment calls involved; but in my estimation, the discussions he's started
or participated heavily in have (1) commanded a good deal of time from
volunteers, staff, and Trustees who ideally would have something worthwhile
to show for the time invested; (2) galvanized the community of, in some
cases, the most disruptive banned users and critics of Wikipedia; and (3)
created a central issue that, like it or not, will impact many parties'
perception of Lila and her disposition toward community dynamics, at the
expense of her ability to define that for herself.
I believe this is a substantial problem, and one that is growing, not
shrinking, with every passing day. I do not know what the solution is, but
I do believe that Lila is the one person (apart from Wil, who seems to
pride himself on disregarding advice, and who of course has no professional
obligation at all toward Wikimedia) with the most at her disposal to come
up with an effective resolution.
I firmly believe that if Lila doesn't do something effective to address
this problem soon, it will take on a life of its own, and encompass a lot
more of the Wikimedia world we all care about than it has so far. If she
doesn't do anything, yes, I think the rest of us need to address it
somehow; I don't have a proposal for that, but I would be happy to discuss
possibilities.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072059.html
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071519.html
[3]
https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Wllm&project=en.wikipedia
[4] Wil, who today stated that he's done posting to Wikipediocracy,
previously posted to most of the recent threads in the "Governance" section
of Wikipediocracy: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=14 and
also the parent topic area:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=8
[5] http://wllm.com/
[6]
http://www.change.org/petitions/wikipedia-make-wikipedia-conferences-truly-open-to-all-by-allowing-greg-kohs-to-attend
[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_wales#Regarding_the_nauseating_and_cowardly_remarks_made_by_Wikiconference_USA_attendees
[8] http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99887#p99887
[9] http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99937#p99937
_______________________________________________
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>
