Your perspective is very different from mine or from any I've heard, and
I'd like to understand it better:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se>
> I also think it would be good to remember that WMF transformation from
> the "Superprotect disaster"
I do not see the transition you suggest. As I understand it, we are still
very much in the "Superprotect disaster" era -- one which began under the
same Executive Director we have today and, I believe, four of the present
Trustees. None has publicly acknowledged the existence of the letter signed
by 1,000 people, nor addressed the (IMO more important) second of the
letter's two requests.
These sentiments reflect the more-or-less-unanimous (depending how you
interpret the comments) perspectives of those responding to an informal
poll I requested, which was presented in a November 2015 op-ed I
published in the English Wikipedia Signpost.
Since the poll is informal, it is in no way "closed" -- if you have a
different perspective, Anders (or for any who agree, for that matter), I
would appreciate any additions to that page.
to a very much appreciated 2015 Community Wishlist Survey.
I am aware of the existence of the Community Wishlist Survey, and I
appreciate that it reflects a desire to move forward, which is a good
thing; but I would stop well short of "very much appreciated," for two
(a) In the absence of a clear assertion from the WMF about the role of
local projects (along the lines of what was requested in the letter), I am
personally reluctant to engage in WMF-directed engagement processes (on the
principle "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.") I
prefer to put my time into efforts where I have confidence that I will have
(b) The name "Community Wishlist Survey" continues a misguided notion that
has been prevalent at WMF for many years: Namely, that "the community" is a
constituency among others, which should be appeased. My experience of
people in "the community" is utterly different: many volunteers are just as
concerned about the future of Wikipedia, and issues like demographic
biases, the needs of readers, etc. as WMF personnel. These things are in
fact what *drive* us to volunteer to begin with. But according to the
artificial distinction of "community" as a stakeholder group distinct from
"reader" that is prevalent at the WMF, it is a truism that "community
interests" are something other from "reader interests." That truism is in
I would rather see a "Wishlist Survey" (another name for which could be
"Open Strategic Planning Process"), than a *community-specific* wishlist
survey. But this year, unlike the five year plan created in 2010, we have
no such thing.
To go from an "inside-out" to an "outside-in" model in deciding what
> functionality to develop is a revolution.
The trend in recent years, in my view, has been in the opposite direction.
> And even if we as users all applaud this change, we should also respect it
> can be felt tough to adjust to if you are "inside"
It is my view that many who are "inside" -- staff at the WMF -- have been
pushing hard to have the kind of "revolution" you seem to think has already
happened. Given the number of staff who have lost their jobs, I believe
they are doing so at their own peril, which makes that work all the more
admirable. I wish I could name names here, as there has been excellent work
done within the walls of WMF by a large number of people; but I expect that
in the present environment, they would prefer *not* to be named and
> I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for supporting
> this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)
I would have to give this final point a big "citation needed" tag.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org