Hello Huib,
at first I want to make clear that I write this mail as a normal
community member and not as a board member, and that I am expressing my
personal opinion and in no way stance of the foundation or the board.
Just to avoid any possible confusion about this point.
I read the threads about the blocking of the bot and Dror and I think I
can agree with most of what you said. But in a few points I don't agree
with you, especially with what you said in this special mail.
Abigor wrote:
I fail to see why the Foundation is involved. The bot
isn't giving enough
information regarding source and permission and is therefor blocked by
policy.
That Drork decided to go to the Foundation is just a stupid action, he
could better spend his time fixing the bot...
There are a few issues here. First of all, this is not only a problem
inside the community. There are a few parties involved, inside the
community, for example the Commons, the chapter, and outside the
community, for example the volunteers and NGOs that are cooperating with
the Pikiwiki project. The Foundation has a mission and we encourage
people to put their content free. I see here that you agree with this
mission:
I think the project that he is leading is a great idea
but it must stay
within the Commons policys we can't let somebody have other rules than the
other people.
This mission had inspired a lot of volunteers, including our chapters.
The German Chapter with the Bundesarchiv was the first of such projects
that had third party content involved. And this example had again
inspired a lot of other volunteers and chapters. I remember on the
Berlin chapters meeting this April Dror told me the session lead by
Matthias Schindler about the Bundesarchiv project was the best of the
meeting. I have no doubt that Dror, you, me, we all agree with our mission.
Every project of the foundation has its own culture. In most cases this
does not matter, because the communities between the projects have only
very little intersections (in my opinion sadly). Commons is a very
special project, because it has potentially with every other project
intersections. People from a smaller community, where most differences
can be resolved with discussion and concensus can get a culture shock
when they first have contact with Commons. I don't know if you have this
rule on commons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
but I think commons administrators should especially sensitive to this
rule because it has such a wide spread intersection with other projects.
I have often the feeling that this failed on commons because I know
quite a lot of people who try to avoid commons because they are afraid
of the admins there. If inside of our communities such cultural
differences is such a big issue, what do you imagine how difficult it
could be if a third party is involved?
Now to Dror specitically. I think there are two reasons why blocking him
is disastrous. First, for me blocking is something like to say someone
is an enemy or at least an unwilcome person of the project. Even though
if that block is only temperal or lifted later, that person is marked in
some sense. We saw on board election or stewardship election people
pointing out this person was blocked once or twice, or that person had
issues with copyright on commons. Dror is a board member of one of the
Wikimedia chapters. Per definition he is a very trusted person of the
foundation. So blocking him is like to say a very trusted person of the
foundation is an unwilcome person of the project. This doesn't help to
ease the relations between commons and other communities.
Second reason, and in my opinion the more important reason. As I said
above this is in reality an issue that involves not only commons,
another wikimedia project or chapter, but also third parties and
volunteers of third parties. As far as I know Dror is the only link
person between the two ends (commons on one side and the chapter and
third party on the other side). I think as a person who works on a
project that has intersections with all other projects and all the
different cultures you should also recognize his difficulty in sitting
between commons and the chapter and the third party. So block him out
simply cuts off any communication between the two sides.
Personally I don't think Dror wrong in calling help from the foundation.
At some time the situation is so bad that neither side can resolve the
problem. I think to call for help is a possibility. The involvement of
Cary was helpful, at least the whole thing got moving again, and in the
right direction (a direction, we should all remember this very crucial
point that we all agree on). It is definitively better than cut off
communication.
Commons has its rules, and these rules are important. It is important to
keep copyvios out of commons. But on the other side, dealing with third
party, it may also be more helpful if commons can be more active in
helping the partner fix his problem and not just say Feed or die.
As I said before I agree with a lot of what you said especially on wiki.
And I don't agree with a lot of accusations against commons. I think the
rules of commons have their sense and includes a lot experiences and
knowledge. But as such a central project please be more friendly and be
more proactive helpful.
Bundesarchiv was the first action of this sort and it was a very big
success. It had inspired a lot of people. Because of that success we had
overseen the potential dangers and risks in such projects with third
party. Pikiwiki is the first such project outside of the reign of german
chapter, maybe from a chapter and community that has a very different
culture as commons or German Wikipedia. We have a throw back here. I
read a lot of very good suggestions on this discussion for example in
the mail of Gnangarra. I think it is important to calm down, to work
_together_ and to help each other. If this is a lesson we have learnd
from this event and we can deal such projects in the future better out
of this experience it would at least be useful.
The Pikiwiki logo is nominated for Deletion by me. The
reasson therefor is
simple. Commons does not accept unfree media from different organisations
than the Foundation itself. Since that logo isn't protected by the
Foundation is can't stay as all rights reserved on Commons.
This I agree with you.
Greetings
--
Ting
Ting's Blog:
http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
