This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that
seems to cover most of the milestones.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html

On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brandon and Sarah:
>
> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as
> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive
> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
>
> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization
> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating
> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> > > embraced?
> > >
> > > What would need to be different?
> > >
> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
> > get
> > > better at asking and exploring.
> > >
> > > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
> > why
> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
> page,
> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
> > what editors need.
> >
> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
> There
> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
> join
> > the discussion."
> >
> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community
> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who
> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
> > thing by the Foundation.
> >
> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was
> a
> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
> > explain that people like white space. And so on.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > ​
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to