Hoi
When this is it, when these people get away with it, their behaviour is as
bad as much of what we have seen lately. I do not care who they are. There
is too much going where people decide on policies and effectively destroy
our culture.,
We do no longer care about our quality, it is all about what others have to
do. It is all about determining for others what is good for them. The
resulting negativity has a lot to do with demanding influence and meddling
with what works by some. Some of the trappings of influence may be exposed
like information about the deliberations of the board but then what?
The board is not at the apex of our community, we are the community. Most
of us do care about issues that are real. But when real things happen
apparatchiks do not care; it is not in their interest. It is why Basel
probably died without even a whimper. What is lost in all the huha is care
that shows what really matters and is not reduced to the regurgitation of
the same old, mostly self serving arguments.
We have so much money that we have money stashed away for a rainy day while
at the same time we have millions of well educated people are in refugee
camps with nothing to do going stir crazy. We could make a difference there
having them edit Wikipedia. It would be mostly languages other than
English. Doing this would be good if only to make up for dropping the ball
for Basel. Alternatively we could invest all that money in green energy to
offset the generation of energy with fossil fuel that powers all the
computers and mobiles of people reading Wikipedia.
As an organisation we have been beaten into a pulp with words. Arguments
are only accepted when they come with a long list of sources. These same
sources are often what holds us back. A psychiatrist was sentenced by a
judge [1] because he argued that a caring psychiatrist will improve the
results for a patient. Later research more than vindicated him. The point
being sources exist and their point is often very much wrong. Our culture
of sources prevents our thinking.
That chuckle is so infuriating because it exposes what is wrong with us.
Thanks,
GerardM
[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/02/wikipedia-peter-breggin-power-of.html
On 13 March 2016 at 00:58, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 2016-03-12 1:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> When it is only a nominal consideration but mostly a chuckle, what does it
>> say about the validity of those people and their assumptions?
>>
>
> I should say that it says more about the (lack of) validity of the RfC
> itself, Gerard. To be fair, while I applauded the *idea* of doing a
> consultation about the future of Wikimania in substance and in form, what
> actually happened - a very quiet poll involving three preset options that
> weren't even satisfactory to the very small number of participants - cannot
> possibly be interpreted to reach conclusions to reshape the biggest
> community event of the movement.
>
> I'm all for a proper consultation. This wasn't it.
>
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
