On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
Andreas - when you say "until the Foundation does something," what are you looking for them to do?


Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as I am concerned, they have failed abysmally. There have been words and PR exercises, and no deeds. 

Oy vey. Always drama used in your words Andreas! :) I don't think I've ever seen you post a success story or a positive comment on this mailing list ever.
 

One idea was raised just now: Enshrine the equivalent of the friendly space policy that applies to meet-ups in the terms of use, to apply to the online environment. Treat it like any workplace environment. Make clear that sexism, including inappropriate use of sexual imagery, will not be tolerated. 


I actually brought this on in the civility policy discussion a while back (or something like it), and it was shot down vehemently by the community. Someone has submitted a proposal for Wikimania to discuss it. I encourage you to attend if you can:

http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Adopting_friendly_virtual_space_policy

Two of the most vocal and active community members in the movement are already signed up to attend as "critics" of it.

 
Here is another: redefine the scope of Commons, making it clear that the more sordid and pointless contributions are not welcome. 


The community would have to do that. Wikimedia Foundation doesn't do that. Wikimedia Foundation didn't invent Commons or create the scope for Commons, as far as I know. (I could be wrong though.) So I'm not sure why that would fall into the scope. If Wikimedia stepped in and said "Ok Commonists, here is your new scope," all hell would break lose and we'd most likely have a fork.

 
The Foundation should have cleaned up the festering sore that is Commons ("ethically broken", as Jimmy Wales called it recently) years ago. It has lacked the will to do so. 


Andreas, you consistently have a negative outlook on things. I agree that Commons is a really screwed up strange place. Jimmy and I have both gotten ourselves into trouble in the community fanatically nominating and trying to delete content. However, you're constant negative and jerky attitude towards the Foundation makes them 10 times more unlikely to ever support something you want to see change in. Channelling your anger into positive productivity might be a better thing to get people to take notice and want to make a change. But, that's just my opinion. You and I have similar opinions on what needs to happen on Commons, but, we disagree on where it needs to come from - and I think you have the opportunity to help lead to make the change. I really do.
 

Without support from the top it is no surprise that people like you burn out, or simply stop challenging certain issues, because doing so makes you an outcast in the community that assembles under those conditions. 


I chose to take on these "tasks" myself. I applied to be a WIkimedia fellow for a year who lived and breathed the gender gap - no wonder I'm burnt out. And when you're the "go to" person, it happens. I'm grateful, but, even I want to step away and not think about "the gender gap" sometimes.

This happens to most people, especially women (note: when was the last time you saw a man state he was burnt out?), and the Foundation has nothing to do with it, trust me. Sure, I'm severely disappointed at the change in scope and the removal of funding to support women's outreach outside of community grants. For months I had to sit at my desk and stare at a big sign saying WMF wanted to increase the number of women editors, knowing my fellowship was ending and no one at the Foundation would be funded to continue that work on a large scale. It's been tough, but, so many women have stepped up to make a change...

And now we need more people to stop bitching and make the change. And all I see here is a lot of bitching.


Here is what you said a few days ago:

---o0o---

I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.

---o0o---

Again, without support from the top, there is nothing you can do, or could have done as a fellow, to address this. But know this: the people who will leave in protest if the Foundation ever does step up to the plate are the ones who made your life hell there.

No one made my life hell, that's dramatic. The people who really frustrated me have different views of sexual content and imagery than me, disagree with me on what the scope is, and so forth. I have never once said to myself "Damn you Wikimedia Foundation..you're the reason I hate working on Commons!!!!"

Just like the dude who told me I'm a "secret sexist" (whatever that means) on mytalk page on Wikipedia two days ago. I never shook my fist and said "I blame you, Wikimedia Foundation...you are the reason these trolls show up on Wikipedia...damn you!"

 

The Wikimedia Foundation should adjust its policies to be less welcoming to editors with such strange views of women, so they no longer "outnumber", to use Kaldari's expression, normal people. 


How do you do that? Interviewing people before they click the edit button? LOL. Assholes are going to be everywhere, and they'll work the system no matter what. That's why we need more good people editing, and why taking action to make that happen can make a difference.

-Sarah

--
--
Sarah Stierch
Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian
www.sarahstierch.com