On 8/25/20 10:51 PM, Strainu wrote:

It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional

I think I see where you're coming from, and I appreciate the generous turn away from individuals and towards potential structural problems.  Whatever the latest incident was, we can assume good faith and find constructive ways to prevent it from happening again.

Still, it's strange to see this thread veer into "onboarding" and building up an archive of knowledge and experiences.  These are important topics, perennial even, but I feel it totally misses the point of the incident itself.

As a service organization potentially liable for content stored on their infrastructure, it makes sense that the WMF would have a large team dedicated to threats of physical harm like terrorism, suicide.  It also makes sense that they wouldn't invest explicitly in the emotional well-being of editors and mediating interpersonal problems.

Perhaps we shouldn't expect this of an organization not ultimately accountable to the editors?  No amount of onboarding can change the Foundation's corporate Bylaws or the fact that it owns the trademarks whose value is based on editor labor.  Perhaps if we had a membership organization instead, which would have to report to the editors and justify its progress on initiatives directly voted on by its members...

Just my usual 2 cents!

(Views here are my own and do not represent my employer, WMDE.)

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