On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven <a...@huikeshoven.org> wrote:

> <snip>
> The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
> have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not
sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and
direct the Wikimedia movement? Or is its role to provide support and
services to the movement's contributors, who are (collectively) its
leaders? Should it impose change on projects based on its own determination
of need, or respond to needs identified by project communities?

My impression is that the WMF views the noisy contributors who participate
in meta discussions (and, incidentally, vote for Board elections) as a
necessary evil -- and its own role as being the guarantor of the best
interests of the readers, whom the movement is intended to benefit. Their
sense of the gravity of any controversy among insiders is always tempered
by the conviction that readers are unaffected, and will ultimately benefit.
Since readers are by definition a group who cannot react to internal
politics, they have no voice to criticize any decisions taken in their

I think this becomes the true basis of the anger and resistance on the
English Wikipedia: *the sense that the WMF has declared that it is
leading now, instead of supporting*. That's also the message in comments
that assert the WMF has the authority to do what it likes, and no
obligation to explain or justify its decisions. Each time the WMF has taken
similar decisions the reaction has been similar, but as I mentioned in a
previous post... They are not learning the appropriate lessons.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to