Hoi When this is it, when these people get away with it, their behaviour is as bad as much of what we have seen lately. I do not care who they are. There is too much going where people decide on policies and effectively destroy our culture.,
We do no longer care about our quality, it is all about what others have to do. It is all about determining for others what is good for them. The resulting negativity has a lot to do with demanding influence and meddling with what works by some. Some of the trappings of influence may be exposed like information about the deliberations of the board but then what?
The board is not at the apex of our community, we are the community. Most of us do care about issues that are real. But when real things happen apparatchiks do not care; it is not in their interest. It is why Basel probably died without even a whimper. What is lost in all the huha is care that shows what really matters and is not reduced to the regurgitation of the same old, mostly self serving arguments.
We have so much money that we have money stashed away for a rainy day while at the same time we have millions of well educated people are in refugee camps with nothing to do going stir crazy. We could make a difference there having them edit Wikipedia. It would be mostly languages other than English. Doing this would be good if only to make up for dropping the ball for Basel. Alternatively we could invest all that money in green energy to offset the generation of energy with fossil fuel that powers all the computers and mobiles of people reading Wikipedia.
As an organisation we have been beaten into a pulp with words. Arguments are only accepted when they come with a long list of sources. These same sources are often what holds us back. A psychiatrist was sentenced by a judge [1] because he argued that a caring psychiatrist will improve the results for a patient. Later research more than vindicated him. The point being sources exist and their point is often very much wrong. Our culture of sources prevents our thinking.
That chuckle is so infuriating because it exposes what is wrong with us. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/02/wikipedia-peter-breggin-power-of....
On 13 March 2016 at 00:58, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 2016-03-12 1:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When it is only a nominal consideration but mostly a chuckle, what does it say about the validity of those people and their assumptions?
I should say that it says more about the (lack of) validity of the RfC itself, Gerard. To be fair, while I applauded the *idea* of doing a consultation about the future of Wikimania in substance and in form, what actually happened - a very quiet poll involving three preset options that weren't even satisfactory to the very small number of participants - cannot possibly be interpreted to reach conclusions to reshape the biggest community event of the movement.
I'm all for a proper consultation. This wasn't it.
-- Coren / Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe