On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:15 AM Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As a former, active admin on Meta (but not a current
one), I'd like to
make a few points. I have also not been heavily involved in this rebranding
project, though I should disclose that I've taken a position against it.
1. A page such as this one can play one or both of two roles: (a) a FAQ
about the aims and philosophy of the WMF's rebranding project, and (b) a
FAQ about the general concept of rebranding, and the community's views on
2. It seems reasonable to me that WMF staff have authority over (a), but
certainly not over (b).
3. WMF staff could also, if they so choose, use the Wikimedia "governance
) to host (a); so the choice to post
it on Meta Wiki itself might be questioned.
4. In an ideal world, community views on as important a topic as
rebranding would be clearly synthesized into a document like a FAQ first,
to a point where people advocating for various positions could agree that
the basic information presented is accurate. (This is more or less the
consensus process we use on Wikipedia and other projects.) Once that is
done, it would be a fairly trivial matter for WMF to construct a FAQ,
echoing or even incorporating the language already agreed to, that would
both express its own objectives and views, and also honor opposing views.
5. These points, in my view, all point to the position expressed in recent
days and weeks by many community members, i.e., that this process has been
conducted in a way that is either too fast, or too poorly structured, or
both, to establish a solid (excuse the word) foundation for a good decision.
As a short comment on this disagreement, though, I think WMF staff has two
simple options: (a) Move the FAQ to a site clearly under its own control,
like the "Governance Wiki," or (b) permit the Meta Wiki community to assess
the neutrality of the page. Neither option seems like a particularly bad
one to me, so I'm a little surprised to see this spilling over onto the
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:00 PM Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:01 PM Tito Dutta <trulytito(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There was a continuous practice of citing/overciting the FAQ page,
sometimes without answering the questions directly. This happened more
the other mailing lists (For example:
Now, the /FAQ page, which was being continuously referred to, has a
"neutrality of this page is disputed" tag
It earlier had an essay tag. I have read its talk page.
Until things are settled, which page is recommended (if there is any)?
(Not to anyone in specific, a question/thought in general)
As the person who published that notice...
I think the FAQ is an ok place to find answers to questions. The
notice was a short term solution to improve previous versions of notices
placed there. If anyone wonders about why these notices, you can find
several related discussions in the Talk page, and the edit history is also
quite telling. That page has been a tense corner for months.
Beyond the specific scope of the Brand project, a point of contention has
been and continues to be more Meta: whether a project team (of any kind,
not just a Foundation team) can explain a project in their terms
FAQs) or anyone can edit any page in Meta (including modifying, deleting
reverting answers from the project team in the project FAQ). The topic is
more nuanced and complex than this, I bet all parties are quite frustrated
by now, and this is probably a good meta conversation to have in Meta at
some point, detached from specific projects and heated discussions.
Back to this FAQ, this week the team has prepared updates to that page.
Tito, you asking here is an extra motivation to proceed. :) If anyone
wants to help, watching the page and providing alternative views if new
discussions arise is a good way to contribute to the improvement of the
and hopefully the removal of that notice soon.
Quim Gil (he/him)
Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org