Anna

Thank you for your thoughtful response -- I regret that numerous other
posters have not chosen to take the same approach.  You are quite right
that I believe the the Foundation and its projects need radical change --
revolution if you will -- to become successful.  I do not dispute the
goodness of the intentions that you list, but rather whether the current
organisational structure, culture and ethos of the Foundation are able to
deliver them.  Over the past few years I have sadly come to the conclusion
that they are not.  To the extent that the work of the Foundation supports
its mission I wish to support it -- to the extent that it undermines its
mission then I wish to undermine it.  Is that so surprising?

Rutherford

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

>  Rogol,
>
> Good evening.
>
> In my mind, constructive dialogue is about making *something* work better,
> not about making others feel worse. The tricky part is, other people get to
> decide whether we make them feel worse. That one is not up to us. Critique
> and truly constructive dialogue should be in service of a better
> outcome. Now, that’s not always attainable. We all know I have my days, but
> it’s good as a general marker.
>
> Additionally, constructive dialogue isn’t just whether everybody plays by
> some explicit and implicit interpersonal rules--though social rules really
> do matter--it’s about whether we accomplish something important together,
> something significant. Whether it's creating and enjoying The Cuteness
> Association <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cuteness_
> Association>,
> building the next generation of content on women scientists
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Temple-Wood>, delivering used laptops
> to people who create free knowledge [1], or making verifiable medical
> information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine>, most
> volunteers would like to accomplish good things together. My hope is that I
> can do my part to help make it enjoyable enough for them. Hey, a girl can
> dream.
>
> I’ve read your penned letters on Wikipediocracy (yes, I know WP: NO BEANS
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose
> >,
> but establishing intent and faith is relevant). In your posts you make it
> clear that your entire aim is to undermine the work of the foundation.
> Readers could not interpret your intent otherwise because you spell it out
> and offer a how-to-guide
>
> I am asking you to shift your intent. Your obviously a bright guy, who has
> considerable cognitive gifts at his disposal. You can truly reason, it's
> plain as day. And we need all hands on deck, all able minds working toward
> the development of free knowledge and building an open infosphere for
> future generations. You seem like a guy uniquely fit to help, so I
> am asking you to build with us.
>
> There have been a number of times on this list where I’ve valued your point
> of view and your insights. It would be much easier to trust and receive
> your insights if I knew your intent matched your other good gifts.
>
> Good evening,
> /a
>
> [1] Thanks Eliza, Asaf, and everyone behind the laptop brigade.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Joining the pile-on here.  The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than
> > substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that
> > you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on
> > someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective
> are
> > exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's
> > expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on
> > this list.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed.  This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the
> > > Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation
> or
> > > banning.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Rogol:
> > > >
> > > > "Alternatively,
> > > > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> > the
> > > > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum."
> > > >
> > > > This is the kind of "unconstructive" behavior the list is talking
> > about.
> > > I
> > > > fail to see how threatening to tattle to someone's manager, because
> > they
> > > > disagreed with you about the wording of your posts in public, is
> either
> > > > constructive or the "sort of behavior" one would "expect you to
> exhibit
> > > in
> > > > a public forum." But then again, I'd venture to guess you knew that
> > > > already.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers.
> > > >
> > > > Dan Rosenthal
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <jay...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi list members,
> > > > >
> > > > > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I,
> > your
> > > > > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> > > > > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere
> some
> > > > > posters (some of them frequent) create.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that
> > more
> > > > > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are
> due
> > > > > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> > > > > volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate
> more,
> > > > > but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> > > > > quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> > > > > three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework
> within
> > > > > which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> > > > > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth
> that
> > > > > will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> > > > > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to
> the
> > > > > volume will often achieve the same result.
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
> > > > >
> > > > > The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically
> never
> > > > > been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> > > > > clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This
> suggests
> > > > > the current quota is too high.
> > > > >
> > > > > A review of the stats at
> > > > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very
> > few
> > > > > people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> > > > > exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> > > > > members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they
> > are
> > > > > repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop
> repeating
> > > > > themselves to allow some space for other list members also have
> their
> > > > > opinion heard.
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
> > > > >
> > > > > As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> > > > > proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who
> > have
> > > > > been globally banned by the community according to the
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
> > > > >
> > > > > This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
> > > > > puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy.  The list admins
> > > > > would prefer that globally banned people communicate their
> grievances
> > > > > via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
> > > > > than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people
> > on
> > > > > how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience,
> and
> > > > > then required to block them when they do not follow advice.  The
> role
> > > > > of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
> > > > > the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
> > > > > globally banned users.
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by
> two
> > > > > Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
> > > > >
> > > > > This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness and
> > > > > quality of discourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a
> > > > > substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned
> people
> > > > > also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought
> > > > > provoking views.  This proposal hopes to allow that to continue.
> > > > >
> > > > > However people who have been banned on a few projects also use this
> > > > > list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the community
> > > > > patience on the wikis.  Sometimes the last stand is brief, but
> > > > > occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient decorum
> > > > > that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing
> list
> > > > > readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person
> > > > > dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously
> > have
> > > > > spent editing on the wikis.
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5)
> > > > > posts per month
> > > > >
> > > > > Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real
> life
> > > > > *and* their Wikimedia editing 'account' from the repercussions of
> > > > > their actions. This provision to allow fake identities on
> wikimedia-l
> > > > > is necessary for whistle-blowing, and this mailing list has been
> used
> > > > > for that purpose at important junctures in the history of the
> > > > > Wikimedia movement.
> > > > >
> > > > > However it is more frequently abused, especially by some ‘critics’
> > who
> > > > > have used incessant hyperbole and snark and baiting to generally
> > cause
> > > > > stress to many readers. Sometimes this is also accompanied with
> many
> > > > > list posts on various unrelated threads as the ‘critic’ believes
> > their
> > > > > criticism is so important that all other discussions about
> Wikimedia
> > > > > should be diverted until their problem has been resolved to their
> > > > > satisfaction, which is unlikely anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note this explicitly does not include anyone posting using their
> real
> > > > > world identity, whether or not they have a Wikimedia account.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where a poster does not clearly link to either Wikimedia account,
> or
> > > > > does not appear to be using a real identity, and only after it is
> > > > > exceeding the five post limit, the list admins will privately ask
> the
> > > > > poster to either verify their identity or stop posting until the
> end
> > > > > of the month.  Very frequently a whistle-blower is able and even
> > > > > prefers to be documenting the problem on meta, but needs the high
> > > > > profile of this list to spark the discussion and draw attention to
> > > > > their meta page.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > The five post allowance for proposals 3 and 4 are to ensure that
> > > > > anyone who has not been globally banned can post criticisms without
> > > > > repercussions, which is vital for whistleblowing and  transparency
> > > > > generally, but they need to use their five posts per month wisely.
> > > > > Once they have used their five posts, community members can reply
> > with
> > > > > less concern about being drawn into a direct argument with the
> > poster.
> > > > > It aims to force the poster to listen to others in the community
> once
> > > > > their limit of five posts has been reached.
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is support for these proposals, the list admins would not
> > > > > immediately add moderation or bans, but would implement them as
> > > > > needed, when we notice someone has exceeded one of these limits,
> and
> > > > > we would make a note on a meta page where the community can review
> > > > > these actions without allowing moderation meta-discussion to
> dominate
> > > > > the discourse on the mailing list. Refinements to the list
> moderation
> > > > > limits can then occur organically as we see how these rules plays
> out
> > > > > in practise.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Requests_for_comment/
> > > > > wikimedia-l-post-limits
> > > > >
> > > > > However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to
> > > > > express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals
> > > > > above (please identify them by number, to ease counting).  We will
> > > > > count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post a
> > > > > more refined final version back to this mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > > The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four
> > proposals,
> > > > > but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more
> opposition
> > > > > than support.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > John Vandenberg
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to