The major problem is and has been for a while  is that we have people
in the hierarchy who do not understand how the wiki works, most have
never made an edit out of their 'hidden' wikis or userpages on wmfwiki
or meta..

How can one trust a product in the hands of someone who does not use
it? ..We will never get a truthful answer for his removal and the
reason is probably quite petty as well but it shows discord amongst
our so called 'leaders' and its sad and ironic that this had to happen
around the time wikipedia is doing its donation drive..honestly, WMF
has taken a  nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the
hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her
'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC
for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the
same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..


On 1/9/16, Tobias <> wrote:
> Dear all,
> right now, we know very little about the removal of James. It is hard
> for anyone not involved (which is the vast majority of this community)
> to come up with any safe conclusions, because there is a lack of
> evidence. This opens up the possibility of speculation. I would prefer
> the stating of facts instead of speculation, but since that's not
> happening, I think speculation might be a way to incentivize more
> insiders to come forward with facts, if only to refute the content of
> speculation.
> I am going to attempt to do this in a neutral fashion, and I will also
> follow another important tradition in the movement, assume good faith. I
> do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that allege a secret plan by
> Google or intentions of harming Wikipedia on anyone's part.
> Here's what I think might have happened:
> James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do
> things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also
> endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less
> of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work
> in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the
> cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic
> and collective voice to the outside.
> These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to
> the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community
> involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh
> criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community,
> wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and
> tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in
> turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust.
> The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership,
> and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with
> senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James,
> being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open
> review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other
> board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a
> public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps
> inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation,
> so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from
> the board.
> This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion
> at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a
> grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process
> of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what
> they perceive is incorrect.
> Tobias
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to