My apologies for the error, the "Governance Wiki" URL is: foundation.wikimedia.org
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:15 AM Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> wrote: > As a former, active admin on Meta (but not a current one), I'd like to > make a few points. I have also not been heavily involved in this rebranding > project, though I should disclose that I've taken a position against it. > > 1. A page such as this one can play one or both of two roles: (a) a FAQ > about the aims and philosophy of the WMF's rebranding project, and (b) a > FAQ about the general concept of rebranding, and the community's views on > the matter. > > 2. It seems reasonable to me that WMF staff have authority over (a), but > certainly not over (b). > > 3. WMF staff could also, if they so choose, use the Wikimedia "governance > wiki" (wiki.wikimediafoundation.org) to host (a); so the choice to post > it on Meta Wiki itself might be questioned. > > 4. In an ideal world, community views on as important a topic as > rebranding would be clearly synthesized into a document like a FAQ first, > to a point where people advocating for various positions could agree that > the basic information presented is accurate. (This is more or less the > consensus process we use on Wikipedia and other projects.) Once that is > done, it would be a fairly trivial matter for WMF to construct a FAQ, > echoing or even incorporating the language already agreed to, that would > both express its own objectives and views, and also honor opposing views. > > 5. These points, in my view, all point to the position expressed in recent > days and weeks by many community members, i.e., that this process has been > conducted in a way that is either too fast, or too poorly structured, or > both, to establish a solid (excuse the word) foundation for a good decision. > > As a short comment on this disagreement, though, I think WMF staff has two > simple options: (a) Move the FAQ to a site clearly under its own control, > like the "Governance Wiki," or (b) permit the Meta Wiki community to assess > the neutrality of the page. Neither option seems like a particularly bad > one to me, so I'm a little surprised to see this spilling over onto the > mailing list. > > -Pete > -- > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:00 PM Quim Gil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Tito, >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:01 PM Tito Dutta <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Greetings, >> > There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page, >> > sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more >> on >> > the other mailing lists (For example: >> > >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2020-April/014589.html >> > ) >> > >> > Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a >> > "neutrality of this page is disputed" tag >> > >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ&oldid=20200949 >> > . >> > It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page. >> > >> > Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)? >> > >> > (Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general) >> > >> >> As the person who published that notice... >> >> I think the FAQ is an ok place to find answers to questions. The >> Neutrality >> notice was a short term solution to improve previous versions of notices >> placed there. If anyone wonders about why these notices, you can find >> several related discussions in the Talk page, and the edit history is also >> quite telling. That page has been a tense corner for months. >> >> Beyond the specific scope of the Brand project, a point of contention has >> been and continues to be more Meta: whether a project team (of any kind, >> not just a Foundation team) can explain a project in their terms >> (including >> FAQs) or anyone can edit any page in Meta (including modifying, deleting >> or >> reverting answers from the project team in the project FAQ). The topic is >> more nuanced and complex than this, I bet all parties are quite frustrated >> by now, and this is probably a good meta conversation to have in Meta at >> some point, detached from specific projects and heated discussions. >> >> Back to this FAQ, this week the team has prepared updates to that page. >> Tito, you asking here is an extra motivation to proceed. :) If anyone >> wants to help, watching the page and providing alternative views if new >> discussions arise is a good way to contribute to the improvement of the >> FAQ >> and hopefully the removal of that notice soon. >> >> -- >> Quim Gil (he/him) >> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
