* was discussed extensively
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Not only that, but what the relationship between the Foundation and the community would be was extensively on this list well before the Foundation become as monolithic as it is today.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard < pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Having not read the original thread, I can only comment on this new thread. All the rhetoric I see here is from you, with high-minded phrases like "people are at the heart" (as if Wikimedia staff were non-people), a total lack of concrete points or examples, citing "several experts in the field", and melodramatic statements like "the total disregard of [the people] by its leaders will [destroy Wikipedia]".
If you have complaints, please be specific about what you think is wrong and what concrete actions can remedy it.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell writes:
The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten that people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the heart, it cannot live.
on 1/8/09 4:22 PM, Mike Godwin at mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is really an insupportable assertion.
(I changed the name of this thread so that those who wish to keep their
head
in the sand may do so by avoiding it.)
My message is supported by the countless number of patronizing, condescending missives handed down by your group. In them the people
come
across as an after-thought. A linguistic analysis by several experts in
the
field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group
management.
The Foundation and those who represent it are, if anything, hyperaware of the community on whose volunteer efforts we depend. That awareness factors into practically every decision we make. Anyone who tells you otherwise is speaking out of ignorance.
To name only one example: Every time we discuss Flagged Revisions at the Foundation, someone will express concern about how it might affect community participation if current edits of a sighted version are not visible (for some period of time, at least) to those who consult Wikipedia without logging in. Sometimes the person expressing concern is me -- I know from my own long-term experience in online communities that keeping people motivated to contribute is central to a community's success.
The idea that anyone at the Foundation ever forgets about the dependence of the projects on the larger community of editors is just nonsense, born out of the impulse, so common in online forums, to Assume Bad Faith.
This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring
in
the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
<snip> My message is not about Eric.
The culture of product first - people second was established from the
very
creation of the Wikipedia Project. And it remains pretty much intact to
this
day.
Wales, in his past statement, was wrong. Humans will not destroy
Wikipedia;
but rather the total disregard of them by its leaders will.
Try assuming good faith.
I have all the faith I need: in the people.
Marc Riddell
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- You have successfully failed!