I'm really not sure what rehashing old dramas which have already been played out at Wikipediocracy and Jimbotalk on this list is meant to accomplish unless it is to extend the pointless controversy.
It's all very Junior High School: People A, B, and C were catty about Bobby and Suzie, and person D who heard them felt compelled to tattle to Bobby, since he doesn't like Bobby anyway; and Bobby's feelings got hurt and he got publicly upset, and then people E, F, and G, had their opinions, and Bobby was even more upset, and blah blah blah yammer yammer yammer...
So on what planet does it make sense to rehash this garbage here with a list post arguing that being catty is perfectly normal and that little Bobby isn't cool anyway?
It's stupid.
Moving on...
Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR
(Carrite on WP, Randy from Boise on WPO)
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 2:32 PM, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation (Gerard Meijssen)
- Re: On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation
(edward) 3. Re: On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation (Milos Rancic) 4. Re: On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation (edward) 5. Re: Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Israel’s Ministry of Education & Wikimedia Israel Agree On New, Unique Initiative (Yves Z) 6. Why Wil's actions in multiple forums are a matter of significant concern (Pete Forsyth)
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:41:25 +0200 From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation Message-ID: <CAO53wxVsOM5ztoN9o=b=2ux= z83L9WjBGHf6dG3dN8RqbdBp1w@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hoi, Please don't Thanks, GerardM
On 15 June 2014 21:19, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Christophe Henner < christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'm puzzled of those emails.
Christophe, thank you for explaining how this looks from your end. I understand now why this would come across this way, and will put
together a
more focused summary like you (and Nathan) suggest shortly. Yes, perhaps
it
would have been better if I started that way.
Hinting someone dumping someone else is NOT an organisational solution. From my culture and my values it's not only rude and violent, but way
over
the line.
Since this seems to be the most heated issue at the moment, I want to
point
out: I am not the one who made these allegedly nasty comments public; the person who made them public, and then proceeded to discuss them in
numerous
public forums, was Wil Sinclair. If making them public is the problem,
then
the aggressor and one of the victims are one and the same person. Yes, I mentioned it here first, but only after it had been widely discussed in other prominent forums (links in my next email). Again. I am not the
person
who made these comments public.
Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:07:30 +0100 From: edward edward@logicmuseum.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation Message-ID: 539DFD02.2010703@logicmuseum.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 15/06/2014 20:08, Milos Rancic wrote:
Christophe, Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago. Besides that, not under ED mandate.
In what sense were these issues 'closed'? 'Closed' usually means 'resolved'. As far as I know, they were not resolved.
Message: 3 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:12:37 +0200 From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation Message-ID: < CAHPiQ2Hi8aH4R4zAjGfFBssH3jCVrKTqh8v7OrUcWAaLtj7xFw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Jun 15, 2014 10:07 PM, "edward" edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 15/06/2014 20:08, Milos Rancic wrote:
Christophe, Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago. Besides that, not under ED mandate.
In what sense were these issues 'closed'? 'Closed' usually means
'resolved'. As far as I know, they were not resolved.
Whatever fits best to you. You can use imagination, as well.
Message: 4 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:19:32 +0100 From: edward edward@logicmuseum.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation Message-ID: 539DFFD4.2070207@logicmuseum.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 15/06/2014 20:19, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Since this seems to be the most heated issue at the moment, I want to
point
out: I am not the one who made these allegedly nasty comments public; the person who made them public, and then proceeded to discuss them in
numerous
public forums, was Wil Sinclair. If making them public is the problem,
then
the aggressor and one of the victims are one and the same person.
Ahem. After the conference, Kevin Gorman allegedly sent an email to Wil Sinclair telling him to 'back the fuck off'. Sinclair asked (on wiki) "Please, Kevin, in the future if you have anything to say to me regarding Wikipedia, try to do it on-wiki where everyone can take part. (10:37, 12 June 2014 UTC).
Directly after this, Sinclair published an email from Gorman, as follows:
"Given how cautious people have asked me to be in speaking to you I would normally hesitate to share this - but given the *sheer number of people who were reiterating the sentiment in NYC*, I don't think it has implications for anyone's anonymity - more than a couple people in NYC, including *in positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the Wikimedia world yet*. That's not something I want to happen - least of all because it would be a bloody mess - but that's something that multiple influential people are already explicitly bringing up in semi-public settings. (This is pretty certainly on the list of issues people would rather I don't discuss with you... but I can't even think of every person at the conference who brought it up with me.)"
It seems clear why Sinclair felt he had to publish the emails, i.e. being told to 'back the fuck off'. By the same token it is clear why it is such an emotive subject in the community.
If making them public is the problem, then the aggressor and one of
the victims are one and the same person.
You are saying that Sinclair is the aggressor here?
Message: 5 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:21:09 -0400 From: Yves Z zyzzyvy@outlook.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Israel’s Ministry of Education & Wikimedia Israel Agree On New, Unique Initiative Message-ID: BLU185-W361DBDB0ECC5F8F98BE9E8A9170@phx.gbl Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Interesting, and nice publicity with an Education Minister. It mentions History and Geography as topics.Does this mean a similar project is needed in Palestine to maintain neutrality?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:01:11 +0200 From: ps.huard@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Israel’s
Ministry of Education & Wikimedia Israel Agree On New, Unique Initiative
Kudos WMIL and everyone involved \o/
Pierre-Selim Message d'origine De: Pine W Envoyé: mercredi 11 juin 2014 08:56 À: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; education@lists.wikimedia.org Répondre à: Wikimedia Mailing List Objet: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Israel’s Ministry of
Education & Wikimedia Israel Agree On New, Unique Initiative
I'm forwarding this good news from WikimediaAnnounce-l that mysteriously wasn't received by Wikimedia-l. I'm sending this to Wikimedia-l and Education-l.
Pine
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Itzik - Wikimedia Israel itzik@wikimedia.org.il Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:58 PM Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Israel’s Ministry of Education & Wikimedia Israel Agree On New, Unique Initiative To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
(Posted also on the Wikimedia Blog:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/06/10/israels-ministry-of-education-wikimedi...
)
An agreement was met in a meeting between Rabbi Shai Piron, Israel’s Education Minister, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Itzik Edri, Chair of the Wikimedia Israel Board and Michal Lester, Executive Director of Wikimedia Israel, regarding a shared cooperation with Wikimedia Israel in the framework of the ministry’s
school
curricula in the coming years. Through the planned cooperation, history, geography and science teachers will receive special professional training to instruct students on how to contribute to new or incomplete Wikipedia articles for which information is lacking or inadequate.
The Education Ministry will also examine the possibility of integrating Wikipedia writing assignments in the teaching of research and community involvement. They will also consider having students who speak additional languages (primarily English and Russian) write Wikipedia articles about Israel in those particular languages.
Education Minister Rabbi Shai Piron said, “It is important to us that the education system in Israel leads in innovation and cooperating with Wikipedia is a wonderful opportunity to think outside the box and enable students in Israel to do things that make a difference from which others can also benefit.”
Jan-Bart de Vreede, Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees said, “Israel is today among the leading countries in the integration of Wikipedia in the education system and academia. I hope our joint work
model
will also serve as an example to other education systems around the
world.”
In the framework of cooperation that is already in place between
Wikimedia
Israel and the Ministry of education, several pilot projects are being conducted. The projects involve teacher training in good Wikipedia usage, article composition, Wikipedia article writing by gifted high school students and the teaching of proper Wikipedia usage to elementary schoolchildren. It is worth mentioning that through cooperation with academics in a variety of universities and colleges throughout Israel, hundreds of articles are written each year by students in courses. Thus students write Wikipedia articles as part of their degrees, sometimes
even
in lieu of exams or final papers. The Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University recently conducted a special 2-credit course on the subject of Wikipedia and medicine.
Survey results published last week as part of Wikipedia Academy 2014
Israel
revealed that 84% of the Israeli public relies heavily on Wikipedia and
74%
say that it provides all the information they need. Over one third of the population expressed interest in learning to write for Wikipedia.
*Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Message: 6 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:32:38 -0700 From: Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why Wil's actions in multiple forums are a matter of significant concern Message-ID: <CAGWts0G1wYW8pVSFiTx8LBLn_j_Me4FonuXuzhbNUr642A=C= Q@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Wikimedia has a problem right now, and in the absence of any effective intervention, it appears to be escalating, not receding.
The problem, in a nutshell: Wil Sinclair, the partner of Wikimedia's new Executive Director Lila Tretikov, has taken strong, even radical positions on what is needed for Wikipedia's future well-being; and owing (by all accounts, unintentionally) to his connection to her, his views are receiving a much higher degree of attention than they would otherwise, and having significant impacts on our community. Lila, whose name and position are a key ingredient in the notoriety and influence Wil has so quickly gained -- and who is therefore in a uniquely responsible and uniquely influential position in this matter -- has made only one public statement on the matter, stating that she intends to do nothing about it.[1] But this is a problem that needs to be addressed.
As Milos Rancic has said, "Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago." The issues he's raised, by and large, are ones that have been widely discussed many times; we see people bring them up often, and they generally don't get much traction or lead to 100+ comment discussion threads.
The key difference, I am confident, is best exemplified with the first words Wil ever spoke on this list: "I'm Wil Sinclair, Lila Tretikov's significant other."[2] Regardless of his intentions, his introductory message to this list garnered "welcome" messages from three WMF staff, and also from three others, and many people (as I have confirmed in many offline conversations) made a mental note that here was somebody it would be worthwhile to keep on the radar. These 6 prompt messages foreshadowed the disproportionate amount of attention he would receive in the coming weeks. I believe this unusual level of attention derived almost entirely from his connection to Lila. (I don't know any way to prove that, but if any longtime subscribers think the attention he got was typical of a new list contributor without Wikimedia experience, I'd be interested to know.)
Wil soon parlayed that popularity into other forums. He's now had extensive discussions on Wikipedia (WP), where 166 of his 400 edits are to his own User Talk page;[3] and Wikipediocracy (WO)[4] where he's posted 283 messages in maybe a dozen topic threads; and relaunched his personal blog.[5] His blog's stated goal is to end what he calls the "Wiki War" between WP and WO; in the 10 days since he launched it, he's published 3 blog posts, all on this topic, and collected about 70 comments. He also launched a petition on change.org,[6] calling for better treatment of (arguably) English Wikipedia's most notorious banned user.
So although he is no longer posting multiple messages per day on this particular email list, his daily efforts to shape the direction of the Wikimedia movement has not slowed down.
This is true of many dedicated Wikipedians, of course; but in this case, he is getting a disproportionately high level of attention from influential people. His user talk page contains 25 comment threads full of advice from Wikimedia Trustees, longtime Wikipedians, former ArbCom members, Wikipedians in Residence, staff and board of affiliated organizations, etc. By contrast, I have students and clients who have made more edits, over longer periods of time, who have received little more than a {{welcome}} message on their page. Wil, or his activities, have also ended up in extensive discussions on Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' user talk page, most recently here.[7]
This level of influence is, to my eyes, clearly a function of his connection to Lila. Not exclusively -- he has of course demonstrated a knack for presenting himself in a way that attracts attention -- but his connection to her is a vital ingredient in his success.
But I'd like to get back to how he has used that influence. He has focused, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively on trying to stimulate discourse and reconciliation between the Wikimedia and Wikipediocracy communities.
For those who are not familiar with Wikipediocracy: I am not one of the people who would paint it as "bad" with a broad brush. It's a tremendously active forum dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and many well intentioned people say many useful things there. However, it is also a place that where *truly* mean-spirited and damaging things are sometimes said, and are frequently allowed to remain indefinitely.
An example, drawn from the recent controversy, may help:
A couple days ago, a regular, anonymous WO participant -- who has benefited from many friendly exchanges with Wil -- had the following to say about a longtime Wikipedian (who's not active on Wikipediocracy, to my knowledge) using their full given name: "[name elided], you're a cunt...You are the worst kind of coward" and then insults this person's physical appearance. Some forum participants objected to this comment,[8] and suggested it might be removed, but to date it hasn't been. Wil responded with light, good-natured scolding.[9]
While we can all agree that discourse in Wikimedia spaces can be problematic, I do think that a vulgar, direct, personal attack like this -- especially launched from behind a veil of anonymity, addressed to a person's full name -- would generally not be tolerated here. So there is at least one good argument in favor of maintaining some distance between Wikimedia and WO.
I wouldn't say reconciliation between the WP and WO communities is necessarily a bad goal, but it is most certainly a *delicate* area. And Wil has exhibited, repeatedly and even explicitly, that delicacy is not his thing. His impact is, of course, hard to measure, as there are many judgment calls involved; but in my estimation, the discussions he's started or participated heavily in have (1) commanded a good deal of time from volunteers, staff, and Trustees who ideally would have something worthwhile to show for the time invested; (2) galvanized the community of, in some cases, the most disruptive banned users and critics of Wikipedia; and (3) created a central issue that, like it or not, will impact many parties' perception of Lila and her disposition toward community dynamics, at the expense of her ability to define that for herself.
I believe this is a substantial problem, and one that is growing, not shrinking, with every passing day. I do not know what the solution is, but I do believe that Lila is the one person (apart from Wil, who seems to pride himself on disregarding advice, and who of course has no professional obligation at all toward Wikimedia) with the most at her disposal to come up with an effective resolution.
I firmly believe that if Lila doesn't do something effective to address this problem soon, it will take on a life of its own, and encompass a lot more of the Wikimedia world we all care about than it has so far. If she doesn't do anything, yes, I think the rest of us need to address it somehow; I don't have a proposal for that, but I would be happy to discuss possibilities.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072059.html [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071519.html [3]
https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Wllm&project=en.wiki... [4] Wil, who today stated that he's done posting to Wikipediocracy, previously posted to most of the recent threads in the "Governance" section of Wikipediocracy: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=14 and also the parent topic area: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=8 [5] http://wllm.com/ [6]
http://www.change.org/petitions/wikipedia-make-wikipedia-conferences-truly-o... [7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_wales#Regarding_the_nauseating... [8] http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99887#p99887 [9] http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99937#p99937
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 123, Issue 64