The problem here is that the rock she's turning over is "Oh, look, I've become controversial, and people want me out of the loop because of that! Isn't this a scandal?"
Kelly's claim is that this is an in-crowd cultish behavior. It's also interpretable as attention seeking drama.
There could be cultish behavior on internal lists (I am not on any such list, so I haven't got any evidence either way). But I find that in general, people behave in private much like they behave in public, but with moderately less restraint.
-george
On Dec 19, 2007 4:25 PM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Kelly is sensationalist, but she's sharp. She has a rare combination of deep knowledge about wikipedia and a deep suspicion of everyone and everything (by contrast, the harshest wikipedia critics have traditionally been woefully misinformed about how the project works), which means she turns over rocks that other people don't.
Frankly, I think insiders need to start displaying more humility. There's a bit of a PR crisis going on. If kelly makes valid points in a needlessly abrasive way, nobody's going to win an argument against her by saying she's a troll.
On Dec 19, 2007 4:57 PM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
If I had to decide which set of statements is more poisonous (and pointless) I'd run with Kelly Martin's. Invective seems to be her style, and I guess as she's found it hasn't been very productive in achieving her goal (whatever that may be). On the other hand, she has got all kinds of sources! Each post apparently has a whole set of secret sources! (At least three this time, but maybe more?) Anonymous sources, who also post to her blog anonymously... Was this the irony she was referring to?
On the other hand, regarding private lists - have you considered making the community lists publically viewable but only allowing the specific group of people you've identified to post? By community lists I mean lists with contributors who aren't officially connected to or bound by WMF. Internal communications, in keeping with the standard corporate meaning, should include people internal to the actual organizational structure who are bound by confidentiality agreements.
Just in general terms, anything you say to a semi-public audience will eventually leak - better to just address the public audience first, and say only what you wouldn't mind everyone hearing. And when Kelly comments, don't feed.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l