Wikimedia-l January 2008

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

162 participants
205 discussions

[Foundation-l] WMF Development and Memes
by Mike Godwin 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Gregory Maxwell writes: > In particular Wikimedia appears to be suffering from a massive > collapse in it's ability to communicate. This was especially apparent > to me on the fundrasing committee mailing list, but I think it is > apparent to anyone who has been involved deeply in this organization. I've only been involved with the Foundation since June (only employed since July), and in my view, based on experience with other nonprofits that have gone through growing pains, what you're seeing is not "a massive collapse" but the long-term recovery from institutional problems that are not unusual in growing organizations. > I can't recall a recent conversation about Wikimedia, with staff, > board members, deeply involved volunteers, or casual contributors > alike where someone wasn't surprised by something going on. I'm not sure why this should be troubling in itself. Every time an organization becomes successful and starts to grow, it becomes impossible for the original "members of the club" to know everything that's going on. This is not particularly invidious -- in fact, it's quite normal, even if it's discomforting. We can't be a club anymore (and haven't been able to be one for quite some time). > I hope that the causes of my recent disappointment are transitory > growing pains, because I would be deeply saddened to see such a > worthwhile mission impeded by institutional malfunction. I don't think the Foundation has failed quite yet, Greg. What I actually suspect you're feeling is the shockwave of changes that mostly were necessary. Change in the context of huge success and growth is uncomfortable -- take it from someone who's been through this kind of organizational development stage a few times before I got here. The first time I experienced (at EFF) I was hugely pessimistic about everything that was changing. After the next couple of waves of change happened and the world didn't end (and indeed we got better at what we were doing), I didn't stop worrying (I still worry about everything even now), but I lost my overall pessimism. In my view, we're doing way better than EFF was when EFF was this far along. But there are things that cannot be changed unilaterally, even by the most successful Foundation management team you can imagine. And that's the extent to which memes that undercut the potential of the Foundation and its projects are spread by people who mean well. For example, if you're "surprised" by something you hear in a conversation, you may infer (and spread the meme of) lack of transparency or dishonesty or whatever. But most people who are involved in all this stuff we're doing aren't dishonest -- they are, in fact, idealistic and trying to be helpful. After things get big enough, it's harder to keep everything "transparent" (for example, there may be legal constraints on what you can disclose in the interests of transparency when you're dealing with employment-law issues), but that doesn't mean people value transparency any less. Recognizing this is something the whole community has to do jointly -- it can't be imposed or generated by even the most well-meaning competent Foundation you can imagine. If we're sufficiently jaded, I suppose, we can dispense with the Assume Good Faith counter-meme, which I think was designed to remind us that the great majority of us mean well, are honest, etc. But I hope you aren't ready to toss it just yet. I'll close by saying something I've noted before, which is that we have created a culture of *editors* here -- people who look at everything anyone says or writes with a critical eye -- and so we've built in a cultural predisposition to think things are going badly and need to be improved or reformed. I ask that you be aware of this cultural predisposition (I suffer from it myself), because I think too much pessimism in our culture can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can do better than that, IMHO. Sorry for the meme-centrism of this discussion, but it's been my paradigm for a long time now. (See, e.g., <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html >.) --Mike

4 3

Re: [Foundation-l] On the cost of explaining things.
by Durova 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Once again I discover in passing that people are discussing something I did without actually talking to me. My e-mail is enabled; I'm not hard to find. I get this list in digest form; it would be rather nice to have been approached directly, or at least to have gotten a friendly heads up. Sometimes memes overtake a discussion and this has been one of those instances. The news reports really were quite far off base. The only journalist who checked the facts with me before publishing a piece about it was Seth Finkelstein. The other stories were mistaken on several points on both facts and tone. I'll trust that the Wikipedians who went on record were sincere, but they really hadn't double checked either. I made a mistake and am very sorry for it. Within 75 minutes I realized that and unblocked the account with apologies. The editor wasn't even online at the time. I specifically opened my actions to scrutiny on an administrative noticeboard and made a statement to clear that editor of suspicion, asking that scrutiny concentrate on my actions alone. Afterward I shared my research with a few individuals, telling them I was ashamed of the mistake, and asking for private feedback. Someone violated that trust. And then, two days later, another person published it. I had already extended apologies to the individual before he published it, and I had asked the people who were defending me at his user talk to withdraw their statements. He had a right to be angry with me too and I did my best to atone for it, but he was implacable. The list was called cyberstalking and was, for the most part, exactly what that name implies. It doesn't take long on a Google search to see that I had been the target of some particularly vicious online attacks. I'll give one example because it's already public. Here's a community ban I sought because I discovered that an editor who admitted to an arrest record and an inpatient psychiatric history was posting graphic sexual fantasies about me both on Wikipedia and on his private website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archi… I was up front and candid about that when most women wouldn't be, and the result of that candor is a certain attack site has been paraphrasing the incident in a manner designed to discredit me. According to them, I saw the editor's fictional reference to Arkham Asylum of the Batman comics and went on a rampage for no reason at all. Well I don't happen to read graphic novels and didn't notice that allusion until someone pointed it out to me after the fact. Another administrator deleted his user page; the rest of my evidence ought to speak for itself. And that particular incident was the tip of the iceberg. The people who populated that list were untrained amateurs - well intentioned - but making their newbie mistakes. Most of them were just fine, yet the luck of the draw was that each time I brought a specific instance of harassment to their attention one or more people intervened in a way that made things worse. I am nearly untrollable, but not being able to trust the people who were close to me was much harder to take. My concentration and judgement slipped; I realized that in retrospect. And I wrote an experimental report that wasn't all that much like my previous work, then made the mistake of acting upon it. I regret that deeply and I regret the hassle it caused. Now I'm endeavoring to rebuild the reputation I damaged. Do 99 investigations right and get one wrong; everyone remembers the mistake. And I would very much appreciate it if, in future, people seek their information from the horse's mouth. -Durova

2 1

[Foundation-l] On the cost of explaining things.
by Gregory Maxwell 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

On Jan 8, 2008 7:58 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > - While I believe that information that doesn't cause harm should > generally be publicized, one should not underestimate the cost of > communication. Time we spend on replying to some long foundation-l or > internal-l thread is time we don't spend doing the actual core work of > the Foundation. Of course, one could account for some time being spent > on such explanations, and one should. In addition to being financially supported by the public, Wikimedia is able to exist only through the generous contribution of time by tens of thousands of people all over the world. So, yes, communication is expensive but you are the glass maker complaining about the cost of sand. It's a cost of doing business. These days it seems many users learn more about Wikimedia from leaks and reporters than they do through the official channels. Does that form of communication actually turn out to be less costly?

5 5

[Foundation-l] [Announcement] New Head of Communications: Jay Walsh
by Sue Gardner 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Hi folks, I'm delighted to announce that Jay Walsh will be the Wikimedia Foundation's new head of communications. Jay will join the staff of the Foundation on Thursday, January 10, and will report to me. Jay comes to Wikimedia from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada's national public broadcaster -and my former employer- where he worked in issues management and media relations. His job there included talking to journalists, and designing and executing PR and social media strategies. I worked with Jay a couple of times at CBC, which I always enjoyed – he’s smart and thoughtful. Before joining CBC, Jay worked in communications for various departments of the Canadian government including Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Health Canada, the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Justice. Before that, he worked in communications at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design. He has also done volunteer PR and fundraising for several Canadian non-profits, and he holds a B.A. with a specialization in Creative Writing from Concordia University in Montréal. Jay is a longtime user of the Wikimedia projects and is enthusiastic about how social media are changing the ways that people and organizations communicate. I know that in addition to shaping Wikimedia's official messaging, Jay plans to help us develop new and less formal ways to speak with each other, with donors, media and readers. I want to take a moment to thank Sandy Ordonez, who has managed Wikimedia's communications since January 2007. Sandy will be with us until the St. Petersburg office closes at the end of this month. I'm extremely grateful for her hard work and excellent judgment: I hope you will join me in wishing her all the best. As with all the new staff, the goal is to give Jay a fairly long handover time. So until the end of January, please continue to work directly with Sandy, while she helps Jay get oriented. Please join me in welcoming Jay to the staff of the Foundation. Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] Litigation costs
by Mike Godwin 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

Robert Rohde writes: >> Don't mistake me for a wild idealist. I recognize there do need >> to be > practical considerations, but if we are really planning for a $4M > budget, > then setting aside say $200k (5%) to defend cases where we believe > that we > are in the right seems like a more than reasonable starting point (in > addition to money set aside to address other legal issues). A single copyright case could easily exceed that amount to defend. Yes, of course the Foundation has defenses under DMCA. But those who use our content may not. Are you proposing that we allocate $200K to defend those who use project content because we told them it was okay to do so per fair use doctrine? > Not to mention > that I continue to believe that a legal defense of Wikipedia would > be a very > effective rallying point to draw additional funds and the support of > like > minded organizations (e.g. EFF, etc.) Having spent nine years at like-minded EFF, I'll point out that EFF raises money for its own operations, mainly, and is unlikely to raise money for us. EFF also very carefully picks its cases -- it does not defend or pursue every winnable case (I wish!). That's because EFF recognizes that it needs to work within a budget and maximize results from its expenditures. --Mike

4 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Human judgment
by Samuel Henderson 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

Hi Elisabeth, Well, my reason for changing the subject was to refocus the discussion from a specific case to a general issue which affects all Wikimedians. Like most who have commented here, I am in no position to judge the particulars of the ru.wikibooks situation, as I lack both the requisite linguistic ability and the requisite background knowledge. I can only say that it *appeared, *from the information posted here,* *to be a case of egregiously abusive, intimidating behavior by someone treating a WMF project as a personal fiefdom; and that the further *appearance *of inaction in the face of such profoundly unacceptable behavior was sufficiently troubling to prompt some reflection. It would not serve my purpose, and was not my intent, to question your judgment (or anyone else's). It is however necessary to question a culture in which -- as at any rate it appeared, from the remarks posted here -- stewards do not feel qualified to exercise their own judgment in the absence of a community request (even when such a request is unlikely to be forthcoming). *If* true, this suggests that very serious problems exist in our organizational culture. In any event, the traffic level since my post has served to remind me that this list is not suited to nuanced discussions of, well, anything; at least not for those of us who subscribe to the digest. IMO this is unfortunate. But so be it, for so it is; I shall return to my lurking. Best regards, Sam > Although this is the wrong thread: > The human -my- judgement was: reverting the one revert (one revert imho is > no editwar) and warn him once more, then if he had reverted it again, I > would have desysoped him and restored the Monobook again. > > I doubt You would normally block a user in Your project after one revert > if > it is not obvious vandalism, if the user might not be aware that he is > doing > wrong and gives a reason for his revert in the summary? > > Please don't cut that off the case we are talking about, if You are really > talking about human judgement You can't generalize it imho, it is case > specific. > > Best regards.

2 1

[Foundation-l] (no subject)
by NavouWiki 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

Friends, There is a discussion regarding the blocking of tor nodes and how we should be doing this on the English Wikipedia. This discussion is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking/TOR_nodes Regards, Mercury

1 0

[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2007 about to open
by Bryan Tong Minh 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

Dear Wikimedians, Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2007 Picture of the Year competition will be held soon. Any user who is registered at any Wikimedia wiki and has more than 200 edits is invited to vote. The competition is among the 514 images that became Featured Pictures at Wikimedia Commons between 2007-01-01 and 2007-12-31. There are literally hundreds of beautiful high quality pictures... please help us choose the best one! Voting will be conducted through a tool on the toolserver (to make it easier to count compared to editing on a wiki). Users can request a voting token on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Voting . You will need to have email enabled for the user account you intend to vote from. You can only vote once, even if you have multiple accounts that meet the edit requirement. The voter log will be public although the actual votes themselves will be private. There are two rounds of voting. In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like, regardless of category. In the final (28), you can only vote for one image. Voting will open on 10 January. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007 for more information. Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007

1 1

[Foundation-l] Human judgment
by Samuel Henderson 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

I'm breaking this thread because a) it is always possible that there are unique factors in play in the ru.wikibooks situation, and b) this is a wider issue in any case. Here is my opinion: *No policy, however good or golden, should ever override human judgment.* This is true on every level, on every project. Policies that suggest otherwise *should* of course be rewritten; but in any case, they *must* be ignored. It should go without saying that blatantly abusive behavior by the lone admin on a project without a strong local community calls for direct and immediate corrective action, regardless of policy. If the people who are charged by the WMF community with project stewardship do not feel that their own judgment is good enough to handle serious problems in a moment of crisis, then that is a very serious problem which threatens the WMF's entire model of governance. Cheers, Sam -- Samuel Henderson Miryang, South Korea - Chicago, Illinois, USA Document Translation, Review and Proofreading Korean-English, German-English Member ATA, NAJIT, KST Co-moderator NAJIT Listserve Certified Korean-English Translator

4 4

Re: [Foundation-l] Bunners at the bottom of every page
by Samuel Henderson 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

>From the information posted here, this seems to be a case where a single disruptive user, having been expelled from a larger project, is squatting on a smaller project which he has turned into a personal fiefdom. Under these conditions, and where the user in question is the only project admin, it is hardly remarkable that no community movement to desysop has formed. It is unlikely that anyone inclined to stand up to such a user would still be active on the project. If the information posted here has been largely correct, there is absolutely no reason -- and no excuse -- for not desysopping this user. This strikes me as a profound failure of stewardship. Cheers, Sam / Visviva -- Samuel Henderson Miryang, South Korea - Chicago, Illinois, USA Document Translation, Review and Proofreading Korean-English, German-English Member ATA, NAJIT, KST Certified Korean-English Translator This, for now, is up to the local community. (And yes, that is still > small). It are all points we *disagree* on, of course, and insults > maybe, sure, but i think we ought to be careful with deadmin. If Ramir > breaks no Wikimedia policies, then there is no deadmin at hand I > think.

15 22

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l January 2008