----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 2:50:11 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.
Meh. It is not as though he is bringing up some pet issue in which the timing is entirely at his discretion. I would imagine the issue is coming forward at this particular time because of the time-frame chosen someone @ WMF. However mere animosity to his timing would not have prompted me to respond.
My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l. You just don't get it.
Micheal Snow suggested gossip is just human nature. Ni modo. But there is a huge difference between stopping it (which I have never suggested doing) and endorsing it as a more valid channel than foundation-l. That gossip could be endorsed to any degree by someone that has a staff position in the "Community" department says a great deal that is not at all positive about the level of understanding and/or leadership in that department.
Gossip destroys trust. Gossip inhibits transparency. Gossip excludes those that are new. Gossip excludes those who socialize differently (in different languages, tolerate different kinds of humor, at different times, etc.) Gossip deteriorates the quality/accuracy of information. Gossip reduces the quantity/detail of information in circulation. Gossip doesn't scale. Every single one of these values should be a significant concern of the "Community" department given the current state of things. [1]
Gossip is inevitable and won't ever be stopped. But people can personally try to become gossip black-holes and/or work to shift the substance of the gossip to the appropriate channel. And WMF staff can certainly encourage the advertising of issues through more valid (i.e. any other) channels. At the very least, they should refrain from opposing the use of more valid channels in place of gossip.
Birgitte SB
[1]To be complete I feel I need add in some values where gossip rated positively. Just to prevent anyone who has never given the issue much thought from jumping ahead from what I have said above to Gossip=Evil.
Gossip an organic component of human communities (No installation required). Gossip is probably the most grossly inexpensive informational network (If you few resources or the information is rather binary making quality losses insignificant). Gossip very efficient at spreading the information that is more passionately cared about faster and wider than information that people care less strongly about (No need to spend time evaluating information for relevancy before distribution). Gossip is better than nothing in short-term considerations. (Temporary communities will rarely find the drawbacks relevant)
Gossip != Evil Gossip can be very good when a crowded theater catches fire. Gossip is simply not an informational network that is compatible with the goals of the Wikimedia movement.