On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very
little)
guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my tenure,
In other words, you were expected to apply good judgment. It would have been nice if you had been given explicit assurances that editing Wikipedia while you're on staff (obviously primarily outside of work time) is perfectly fine, because it is. :)
I think I've been misunderstood on this point -- perhaps my fault. I want
to be very clear -- I don't feel "wronged" on this front, it isn't a big deal to me. I brought this up only in order to comment on your assertion that giving staff broad license, and no guidance above and beyond Wikipedia policy, would tend to *strengthen* volunteer engagement, which I think is backwards.
One of the dynamics that was initially challenging for me, personally and professionally, was that some editors I had known for some time as a volunteer -- and others who I was just meeting -- began to defer to my judgment. The disposition of community members toward me changed noticeably. I did not want to be inappropriately overbearing, and among all the things I was trying to accomplish in my work, that was a puzzle I did not have time to apply much thought to. Some guidance from WMF management could have helped with that situation. (The lack of it did not, in the long run, constitute a big problem.)
But Erik, it seems to me that you're operating from a premise that guidelines or rules inherently tend to discourage activity. I think that premise is flawed.
I would like to avoid naming names in this thread, but surely you can see
the risks associated with the approach you *have* taken? Leaving the
Belfer
Center situation aside,
.. which, if anything, could have been avoided had everyone who was part of the project been a bit more experienced with Wikimedia norms and practices.
Agreed.
We should default to openness, to encouraging participation in our community, and to forgiving mistakes. That is the right thing to do for an organization that is, needs to be, and will remain anchored in the community.
Agreed.
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to their heads, because this is the kind of moral panicky BS we need to stay the hell clear of.
I have to confess -- I am having a lot of trouble parsing your last paragraph. What is the point where we are so far apart? And (as I think Fae has asked) what is the "moral panicky BS" and how does it relate to this discussion?
I think you've left aside the more significant points I raised -- but it's late here, so maybe you're planning to come back to it tomorrow.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]