On 27/10/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 27/10/2007, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/10/2007, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
After a one month period, on December 9th, we will re-evaluate this decision using previously established methods [...]
Who is "we"? The Gregory Maxwell committee? Obviously it wasn't a Board decision, if Florence knows nothing about it. And if it was an executive decision, why isn't it being announced by Sue, or one of the staff?
This "experiment" needed to be concluded by someone and it seems that the board haven't taken any steps in this direction. Two options when it comes to concluding this experiment are declaring it a success and making it permanent or declaring it failure and ending the ban. Since the motivation for the trial was PR and since the ban has probably done more net harm than good, I welcome Gregory Maxwell's initiative.
P.S. Just as a point of discussion: the Foundation was created to make certain processes easier and to centralise fundraising, &c. Why is a non-Foundation decision or initiative somehow less valid than one led by the Foundation?
Yes, the Foundation holds the purse strings (and does a very important job), but the Foundation has been given too much primacy and authority on Wikimedia issues. The Foundation also has a tendency to consolidate power and remove community-based decision making processes (e.g. the lack of consultation in the latest fundraising drive).
{{cite your sources}} :-)
Honestly Oldak, this seems to me to be largely a string of statements which are seriously lacking backing up. I suppose we may have done sometimes what you are blaming us for.
The Foundation has made questionable encroaches in the past (e.g. influencing the content of Image:Missionary Sex Position.png at en.wiki). I'm not suggesting that the Foundation routinely does this or that when the Foundation does this it is particularly terrible.
But look, here, you are accusing us of having removed power from you on fundraising issue. I would agree that you were perhaps less consulted than you would have wished to be, but how can you talk about removing power from you when several of the main concerns voiced by the english community over the fundraising drive have been precisely acknowledged and that modifications have been implemented in the following few hours ? It seems to me that there might be an unsufficient "consultation", but I see not where the lack of authority and power really was. If what you are suggested is that you should have the power to decide when we need to do a fundraising, indeed, I would disagree with you. I do consider that a significant authority of the Foundation over fundraising issues is mandatory, because ultimately, in case the Foundation gets in financial troubles, the board will be the one responsible in front of the law, not a vague, amorphous and often anonymous community. We strive to listen as much as possible, but ultimately, once there is responsability over something, there must be authority somehow.
Was hardcoding the banner necessary?
You also mention that the Foundation has been given too much primacy and authority on Wikimedia issues. I would be happy to hear more about his and understand what your concerns are.
Thanks
Ant
PS: note that the Foundation has never imposed that the creation of pages by anonymous be prevented, or on the contrary be allowed. That's not a Foundation issue, that's a community issue. It is YOUR responsability to make that decision. However, we are free to have an opinion on the topic, just as you are free to have an opinion as well.
Wasn't anon page creation turned off by Jimmy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village%20pump%20%28tech... If so, wasn't that a Foundation action (if Jimmy was just acting on his own, where is this stated?)?
The Foundation is generally very good, but I'd just like some formal restrictions in place (and more accountability to the community).