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: 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: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>