I didn't make any speculation as to the potential views of any non-participating editors. I didn't even proffer my own view.
I do find it telling that the assumption was made as to what side I would fall on. My problem with how these discussions unfold is that there is a vocal minority that dominate every single last one of them which does nothing to inspire me to engage (along with many other editors I know). You are right that the length and tone of the discussions is a huge factor in that, along with the general fatigue brought on by the wall of text effect. There is a strong element of certain editors continuously setting the tone of these discussions which is unbearably adversarial and exclusionary. On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:33 Todd Allen, <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't believe we can presume everyone who hasn't participated in the > discussion would like to disagree but is afraid to. > > Among all active contributors, I suspect non-participants are mostly a mix > of unaware of the issue, don't have a strong opinion about the issue, don't > understand what's happening and don't want to devote the time to > understanding it, or don't care. Given the WMF's actions, there may indeed > even be some who do not like what they've done, but are afraid to be seen > speaking against them--look what happened to the last guy! And of course > some people on both sides might be hesitant to enter a discussion that's > rather heated and very fast-moving, not to mention the sheer size of the > page to read just to catch up on what already happened. > > So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to > participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people > to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't > get counted. > > Todd > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:10 PM Rebecca O'Neill <rebeccanin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against > > this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have > no > > interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There > > is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority > > appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would > > proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into > > account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to > > the number of regular contributors. > > > > On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter, <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the > > > majority of the en.wiki community: > > > > > > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they > do > > > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis > > > > > > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF > > (apart > > > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves > > > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the > > > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout. > > > > > > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to > > say > > > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking > at > > > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with > what > > > happened, out of hundreds who said smth. > > > > > > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right > > and > > > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is > > > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything > > > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very > unpleasant > > > surprises, they should start working towards building the community > > trust. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Yaroslav > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < > > > gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence > would > > > not > > > > > be controversial for anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been > > following > > > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that > I > > > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source > > > > >). > > > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in > the > > > past > > > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term > contributors > > > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what > > led > > > to > > > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite > > similar > > > to > > > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, > > > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions > that > > > the > > > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the > private > > > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of > > > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice > it > > > is > > > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board. > > > > > > > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare) > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
