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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com