[Wikimedia-l] Why Wil's actions in multiple forums are a matter of significant concern

Wikimedia has a problem right now, and in the absence of any effective intervention, it appears to be escalating, not receding. The problem, in a nutshell: Wil Sinclair, the partner of Wikimedia's new Executive Director Lila Tretikov, has taken strong, even radical positions on what is needed for Wikipedia's future well-being; and owing (by all accounts, unintentionally) to his connection to her, his views are receiving a much higher degree of attention than they would otherwise, and having significant impacts on our community. Lila, whose name and position are a key ingredient in the notoriety and influence Wil has so quickly gained -- and who is therefore in a uniquely responsible and uniquely influential position in this matter -- has made only one public statement on the matter, stating that she intends to do nothing about it.[1] But this is a problem that needs to be addressed. As Milos Rancic has said, "Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago." The issues he's raised, by and large, are ones that have been widely discussed many times; we see people bring them up often, and they generally don't get much traction or lead to 100+ comment discussion threads. The key difference, I am confident, is best exemplified with the first words Wil ever spoke on this list: "I'm Wil Sinclair, Lila Tretikov's significant other."[2] Regardless of his intentions, his introductory message to this list garnered "welcome" messages from three WMF staff, and also from three others, and many people (as I have confirmed in many offline conversations) made a mental note that here was somebody it would be worthwhile to keep on the radar. These 6 prompt messages foreshadowed the disproportionate amount of attention he would receive in the coming weeks. I believe this unusual level of attention derived almost entirely from his connection to Lila. (I don't know any way to prove that, but if any longtime subscribers think the attention he got was typical of a new list contributor without Wikimedia experience, I'd be interested to know.) Wil soon parlayed that popularity into other forums. He's now had extensive discussions on Wikipedia (WP), where 166 of his 400 edits are to his own User Talk page;[3] and Wikipediocracy (WO)[4] where he's posted 283 messages in maybe a dozen topic threads; and relaunched his personal blog.[5] His blog's stated goal is to end what he calls the "Wiki War" between WP and WO; in the 10 days since he launched it, he's published 3 blog posts, all on this topic, and collected about 70 comments. He also launched a petition on change.org,[6] calling for better treatment of (arguably) English Wikipedia's most notorious banned user. So although he is no longer posting multiple messages per day on this particular email list, his daily efforts to shape the direction of the Wikimedia movement has not slowed down. This is true of many dedicated Wikipedians, of course; but in this case, he is getting a disproportionately high level of attention from influential people. His user talk page contains 25 comment threads full of advice from Wikimedia Trustees, longtime Wikipedians, former ArbCom members, Wikipedians in Residence, staff and board of affiliated organizations, etc. By contrast, I have students and clients who have made more edits, over longer periods of time, who have received little more than a {{welcome}} message on their page. Wil, or his activities, have also ended up in extensive discussions on Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' user talk page, most recently here.[7] This level of influence is, to my eyes, clearly a function of his connection to Lila. Not exclusively -- he has of course demonstrated a knack for presenting himself in a way that attracts attention -- but his connection to her is a vital ingredient in his success. But I'd like to get back to how he has used that influence. He has focused, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively on trying to stimulate discourse and reconciliation between the Wikimedia and Wikipediocracy communities. For those who are not familiar with Wikipediocracy: I am not one of the people who would paint it as "bad" with a broad brush. It's a tremendously active forum dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and many well intentioned people say many useful things there. However, it is also a place that where *truly* mean-spirited and damaging things are sometimes said, and are frequently allowed to remain indefinitely. An example, drawn from the recent controversy, may help: A couple days ago, a regular, anonymous WO participant -- who has benefited from many friendly exchanges with Wil -- had the following to say about a longtime Wikipedian (who's not active on Wikipediocracy, to my knowledge) using their full given name: "[name elided], you're a cunt...You are the worst kind of coward" and then insults this person's physical appearance. Some forum participants objected to this comment,[8] and suggested it might be removed, but to date it hasn't been. Wil responded with light, good-natured scolding.[9] While we can all agree that discourse in Wikimedia spaces can be problematic, I do think that a vulgar, direct, personal attack like this -- especially launched from behind a veil of anonymity, addressed to a person's full name -- would generally not be tolerated here. So there is at least one good argument in favor of maintaining some distance between Wikimedia and WO. I wouldn't say reconciliation between the WP and WO communities is necessarily a bad goal, but it is most certainly a *delicate* area. And Wil has exhibited, repeatedly and even explicitly, that delicacy is not his thing. His impact is, of course, hard to measure, as there are many judgment calls involved; but in my estimation, the discussions he's started or participated heavily in have (1) commanded a good deal of time from volunteers, staff, and Trustees who ideally would have something worthwhile to show for the time invested; (2) galvanized the community of, in some cases, the most disruptive banned users and critics of Wikipedia; and (3) created a central issue that, like it or not, will impact many parties' perception of Lila and her disposition toward community dynamics, at the expense of her ability to define that for herself. I believe this is a substantial problem, and one that is growing, not shrinking, with every passing day. I do not know what the solution is, but I do believe that Lila is the one person (apart from Wil, who seems to pride himself on disregarding advice, and who of course has no professional obligation at all toward Wikimedia) with the most at her disposal to come up with an effective resolution. I firmly believe that if Lila doesn't do something effective to address this problem soon, it will take on a life of its own, and encompass a lot more of the Wikimedia world we all care about than it has so far. If she doesn't do anything, yes, I think the rest of us need to address it somehow; I don't have a proposal for that, but I would be happy to discuss possibilities. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072059.html [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071519.html [3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Wllm&project=en.wik… [4] Wil, who today stated that he's done posting to Wikipediocracy, previously posted to most of the recent threads in the "Governance" section of Wikipediocracy: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=14 and also the parent topic area: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=8 [5] http://wllm.com/ [6] http://www.change.org/petitions/wikipedia-make-wikipedia-conferences-truly-… [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_wales#Regarding_the_nauseatin… [8] http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99887#p99887 [9] http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99937#p99937