On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna, > > > > > > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the > > > > > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about > > the > > > > past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad > hoc > > > and > > > > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and > general > > > > solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set > honest. > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it > > is > > > a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social > > behaviour. I > > > assume you mean something different? > > > > > > > I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to > > clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our > > communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best > > places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, > > potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet. > > > > I had a discussion on these matters, as I recall, with Rachel di Cerbo at > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Liaisons/Wikimania_2015 > which may provide you with some background. I suggested some ideas about > centralisation of discussions, machine-assisted tranlsation and other > process-oriented points. I will do a broad lit review when and if the time comes (on and off wiki). If I do so, I will follow these links and read about this as part of that broader lit review. > Pulling back to a more cultural point, I woud > identify three aspects that you might address. > > Staff must actually want to engage, to co-create and to acknowledge that > the community is a partner in the entire enterprise. Agreed. No argument. But I'd like to expand your argument. I would like to add a perspective, not subtract from yours. Our current communities are very seriously important partners in the entire enterprise, as we are theirs. These days, I am also thinking about future communities... new readers and new editors in new geographies on new devices, and reading the thoughts of experts on the evolution of platforms within the context of the evolving web. I am also curious about the role of machines. Will they become an important partner? I know that they say we will welcome our robot overlords. But I am more interested in collaborating with them. Why can't humans and machines collaborate toward social/educational goods? Machine learning is all the rage these days. But to what end? The standard, for-profit, big data play is to harvest and bottom feed a ton of data, run it through a layered algorithm, and spit out "something something" to a customer for a fee. I think they call it insight. I have a different definition of insight. But hey, to each their own. We don't have customers and we don't bottom feed. Two things I am proud of. That is why I was so excited about ORES. An open, ethical, effective AI for social impact that currently helps vandal fighters <https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544036/artificial-intelligence-aims-to-make-wikipedia-friendlier-and-better/>. More importantly, it may help with the "revert-new-editors’-first-few-edits-and-alienate-them problem". That's just the current capabilities of this platform. My broader point being that I also want to think of the new stakeholders that will join us all and how we can prepare for and welcome them into the knowledge creating endeavor. > Of course the > community is not homogenous and the balance of work and responsibility is > not identically equal in every single aspect of the enterprise. > Nonetheless, the model of an active staff supporting and directing a > passive community is both factually wrong and will inevitably lead to > disaster. > I understand your point. > > One misundertood word is representation. I believe that some staff members > believe that they can represent the community simply by having been > volunteers in the past, and even that they can timeshare between their > staff and volunteer identities. This is so far from true that it only > needs to be articulated to be seen as incorrect – indeed, the attempt to > split their identities may be positively dangerous to their psychological > well-being. The notion that only those with Wikimedia project experience > should be hired, and that having hired such people they need no further > contact with the community is utterly disastrous. Those with community > engagement responsibilities must engage, actively, and in a genuine spirit > of enquiry. It is not an unnecessary overhead on getting their work done, > it is their work. > I don't know what staff members believe. I will investigate this when and if I arrive at that stage of problem solving. I understand your point. > > Genuine interaction on planning does not mean asking a few closed > questions of a few community members about which of a few predetermined > options they prefer. It means doing a lot of work and being genuinely > transparent. It also requires internal coordination of a kind which I do > not always detect within the WMF. > Point taken. > > I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on three > > questions: > > > > - What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap? > > - What do we currently have in terms of planning? > > - Will that change? > > > > I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may > > be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner. > > > > Thank you. > Thank you for so graciously accepting my time constraints. I really do appreciate it. I don't want to let you down, but I also want to sleep and tend to my core responsibilities. I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me that > > it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name. If > it > > came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention. I > > was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a > > series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure > > that they were correct. > > > > I am not at all bothered but thank you for your consideration. > Smiley face. > > "Rogol" > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > Hello Rogol, > > > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Rogol Domedonfors < > domedonf...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Anna, > > > > > > > > > > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope > is > > > > necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope > is > > > not > > > > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation. > > > > > > > > > > Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over > > > experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are > > less > > > interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the > > future. I > > > merely suggest that the two go hand in hand. > > > > > > > I agree with your suggestion that they go hand in hand. I think perhaps I > > solve problems differently than you and I come to this conversation from > a > > slightly different angle. I have a question on my mind, how do we build > an > > org and a culture for the future? I’m scanning my environment to see > what I > > hear, what people are talking about. I’m reading a lot. Entertaining many > > ideas. Given what I am hear, read and my specific role, where should I > > focus? I am still ascertaining which issues I might take on. > > > > Specifics, including past successes and errors, would be something that I > > would investigate at a later stage. Your information is relevant to me, > > just not at this stage. > > > > What I said was, > > > "I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly > > address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. > > We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to > > keep the solution set honest." > > > > > > > > > > > > [stuff]] > > > > I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece > > > together > > > > what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment > in > > > any > > > > way on this particular instance. > > > > > > > > > > That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from > it. > > > > > > > You have such a gentle touch. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the > > > > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about > > the > > > > past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad > hoc > > > and > > > > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and > general > > > > solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set > honest. > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it > > is > > > a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social > > behaviour. I > > > assume you mean something different? > > > > > > > I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to > > clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our > > communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best > > places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, > > potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet. > > > > > > > > > > > The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not > > "Do > > > you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a > technical > > > roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so > please > > > will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you > > > were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly > > > less useful version. My long-standing question, then, remains > > unanswered: > > > > > > *Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF > > > publish it.* > > > > > > > > > > If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words > > lacks > > > > even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible > > > > interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading). > > > > > > > > > > I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this > issue > > > over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff. > > > > > > > > > > But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper > issue. I > > > > hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not > > take > > > us > > > > at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your > > > > distrust. I hear you. > > > > > > > > But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know. > > > > > > > > > > Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will > you > > > let the community know? > > > > > > > I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on > three > > questions: > > > > - What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap? > > - What do we currently have in terms of planning? > > - Will that change? > > > > I'll need some time. I have a lot of work right now (that's why I write > to > > you on the weekends). Everybody does. I imagine you would prefer another, > > more speedy option, but I do not have it right now. We’re revving up the > > movement strategy and have our annual planning beginning next week. > That’s > > at the org level. On top of that, my agenda is past max. To get a > coherent > > answer and to make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is > > doing, I’ll need to speak with a number of people who may be difficult to > > get time with. > > > > I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may > > be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, > > how > > > do > > > > you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it > > > differently. > > > > Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the > > first > > > > syllable. Some on the second. > > > > > > > > I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can > > you > > > > be *so sure*?” > > > > > > > > > > Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics > > > Meeting, see, or rather listen to, > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be > > > > > > Thank you for the reference. I now know how to pronounce your name. Next > > time when you send me lovely video references like this, would you be > > willing to give me a time stamp? (It’s 39:15 in case others would like to > > hear it). As it was, I listened to Phillipe’s whole talk. Was that your > > intention? That I listen to Philippe's entire talk? If so, anything else > > you would have liked me to note? > > > > p.s. > > I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me > that > > it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name. If > it > > came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention. I > > was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a > > series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure > > that they were correct. > > > > > > > > > > > "Rogol" > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret > > Fuller > > > > Anna Stillwell > > Chargée d’Affaires / VP > > Wikimedia Foundation > > 415.806.1536 > > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>* > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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> > -- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
