On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>

> >
> >
> >
> > A decision about how the public consumes Wikipedia content (e.g., Media
> > Viewer) is an editorial decision,
> and it's one that the WMF has chosen to
> > make unilaterally. WMF has furthermore moved to give its staff rights
> that
> > facilitate unilateral behavior in the future. But to the degree that Sue
> > Gardner's policy remains in place (and I'm assuming it does), the WMF's
> > position is that any problematic actions taken by individual staff should
> > be subject to community processes.
> >
> I think this is a misunderstanding. Erik's actions are pretty clearly made
> in his capacity as a WMF senior staff member, and it follows from that fact
> that the WMF regard this a decision that it is (at least in the final
> analysis) one that is theirs to take (that is to say, not "editorial"
> Arguing that Erik ought to be sanctioned on the German wikipedia for doing
> his job is, being as kind as possible, futile wikilawyering.
> If you disagree with what he is doing then some appropriate courses of
> action involve speaking to Foundation ED or their Board.  There are many
> other inappropriate courses of action that are being pursued as well,
> though.

Yeah -- and speaking for myself, I see much more value in approaching this
as an organizational issue, than as individual actions.

But when the organization acts unilaterally, it's reasonable to expect that
those being overruled will explore all options available to them. And my
point is, this one is not merely available, but is endorsed by the WMF

Those discussing the flaws in the approach taken by individual WMF staff
members (which doesn't include me) are doing what the WMF has said they
should do.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to