More focused but where I was trying to go.  Thank you.

Perhaps two C level positions, Chief Editor Officer to liase and advocate 
there, and Chief Reader Officer to research and liase and advocate there, too.

Q: How can we identify a Reader representative we could put on the Board?


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:34 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Out of curiosity, why are all of these proposals so focused on people who
> click the edit button.  The overwhelming percentage of our users (half a
> billion a month, if I recall correctly) never click that button.  The vast
> majority of our donors never click that button. The massive majority of
> active and very active editors don't participate in Board selection
> activities. I won't say that the editing community is unimportant - in fact
> I believe it is extremely important - but every proposal that is coming
> forward seems exclusively focused on "empowering" a small percentage of the
> editing group over all other stakeholders.  I'd like to see some
> suggestions that are more balanced.
> 
> 
> Risker
> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 22:27, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as
>> I
>>> can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
>>> view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
>> editor.
>>> When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
>>> that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
>>> just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
>>> encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
>> valley
>>> entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should
>> be
>>> the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care.
>> But
>>> this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
>> 
>> There are several ways to look at this.  One includes the view that the
>> Foundation and Board exist to protect and encourage the Movement, not just
>> the loudest editor communities.  And that there are wider issues for the
>> Movement, including things for users, things keeping users from editing,
>> and things pushing people out of active editing that the Board and
>> Foundation rightly should be paying a lot of attention to.
>> 
>> There are both valid issues the editor community has objected to, and
>> things the editor community (enwiki at least) is grossly dysfunctional
>> about that the Board and Foundation must still focus on.  Both separation
>> for perspective and feedback and relationship care are needed.
>> 
>> 
>> George William Herbert
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

_______________________________________________
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