Information asymmetry is a big issue. For example, in my role there is a
lot I cannot say, I have responsibilities to protect people in the
organization both current and former. So, for example, if someone is fired,
even for cause, I would not say anything about this person that may hurt
their chances in the future. We allow people to message their own exits.
When a situation arises that maybe completely unfair to the senior officer
or a board member, as long as we are employed (and often if we are not) we
will not disclose the details to protect the organization as a whole.
As I am sure you practice all too often in your own professional life this
is required in a professional role: to take the heat and the arrows when
something goes wrong, and to give away credit for what goes right. I would
not have it any other way, but it is something people all too often ignore
I'd love to have a broader FAQ than the current one for Knowledge Engine to
review and help provide transparency into any of the issues I can.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a difficult time for everyone. Staff, particularly staff who work
> out of the San Francisco office, have seen and been through things that are
> not well known or understood outside of that small group; even "highly
> involved" volunteers aren't entirely in the loop. Former staff continue to
> have a knowledge advantage over the vast majority of community members
> simply because of their continued ties to friends and former colleagues who
> remain on staff.
> I encourage everyone to treat each other with respect, even when
> disagreeing with the interpretations that other people have made based on
> the (often comparatively limited) information that they have available. I
> can honestly say that I know some things that perhaps SarahSV and
> Anthonyhcole don't know, but I certainly don't know everything - and I have
> been in the SF offices twice in the last six months as a volunteer and
> regularly converse with staff in certain areas in my role as a volunteer
> working on various things.
> One of the major barriers is the legitimate concern that many staff have in
> trying to communicate concerns in a manner that is not destructive, either
> to the WMF as an organization, or to their own professional reputations.
> The whistleblower provisions at the WMF are very narrow (essentially only
> permitting reporting directly to the Board chair/chair of the Audit
> Committee if there is reason to believe that a law has been broken, not
> just internal policies no matter how severe), as one example. I've been
> aware of concerns for about a year now, myself, but I've still found out
> quite a bit more over the last few weeks. For staff, a lot of those early
> concerns are practically ancient history, and that knowledge hasn't been
> disseminated to a much broader community. Not to put too fine a point on
> it, but the majority of the audience here doesn't know.
> Anthony, speaking for myself only, I don't think that your association with
> Wikipediocracy is particularly relevant; other active members of that site
> have expressed significantly different opinions, whether within or outside
> of "WMF-related" locations like this mailing list or Meta or The Signpost.
> I'd like to discourage anyone from assuming that there are monolithic and
> unified positions on the current situation amongst any particular group.
> That includes former and current staff, editors of particular projects,
> commenters on external blogs or through other non-WMF media or criticism
> sites, user groups, chapters, etc. There are a lot of different points of
> view, and a lot of different levels of knowledge and information.
> I'm not going to say "let's assume good faith", don't worry. I'm going to
> say "don't beat up on people who have different levels of information".
> On 20 February 2016 at 20:31, Brandon Harris <bhar...@gaijin.com> wrote:
> > Danny, don't kid yourself! The folks at Wikipediocracy know
> > everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about
> > everything that will EVER happen. They've never been wrong, ever!
> > I don't understand why we're still talking about this!
> > > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <dh...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation
> > > understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
> > > doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.
> > ---
> > Brandon Harris :: bhar...@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org