All:
In other Wikimedia-related forums, recent discussions have focused on some (alleged) comments at the Wiki Conference in New York. Apparently, some people suggested that the WMF's Executive Director should "dump" her significant other.[1] Many have expressed outrage about this. (For background, see this blog post from May 30.[2] What's described there has continued to play out in the weeks since, just not on this list.)
I think we all share a concern about the amount of "drama" in our community-wide discussions. Expressing outrage (even though it's sometimes appropriate and necessary) can often be the fuel of "drama" -- and I think it's important to explore what's been going on in relation to that principle. So, a couple points:
Point #1: Gossiping about personal relationships, including points like who should dump whom, is totally normal behavior in small group conversation.
Not outrageous -- totally normal behavior. In pretty much every social context I've ever experienced.
I think that much is easily enough to explain and excuse any of the comments people are complaining about. But in this case, there's of course more going on:
Point #2: The ED of the WMF can influence the world in significant ways, and we all have a stake in how that goes. Her first day on the job was completely overshadowed by her partner's aggressive pursuit of his own agenda. In the weeks since, that has only intensified.
When the ED responsible for the largest online community in the world declines to take decisive and effective action on something this significant, and declines to take ownership of her own introduction and priorities, many people -- both on this list and in the wider world -- will take notice, and will talk about what might, or could, or should happen next. That is the natural way of things.
One obvious "decisive action" she could take would be to "dump" her partner. Her partner underscored that their connection was a legitimate point of discussion by choosing to introduce himself entirely in reference to her in his first email to this list,[3] and by then continuing to talk about their relationship.
When the idea that she might "dump" him comes up, I doubt the main intent is ever to meddle in anybody's personal life. I have (of course) made comments like this, in many private discussions, and I wouldn't be surprised if it comes up again. It's a comment that comes up while talking about possible outcomes, and ones that might stand a chance of resolving this mess. "Dumping" is rarely a central topic of interest, simply because nobody I've talked to knows much about the relationship beyond the baffling and frightening dynamic that has played out in public.
Right now, those who care about Wikimedia are in an incomprehensible situation. The ED's partner, not the ED, is driving highly visible and influential discussions. Of course all kinds of things are being said about it, in all kinds of places. Anybody who acts surprised about that is in some kind of denial, and -- probably unintentionally -- further fueling the drama with their expressions of outrage.
Commentary about a high profile relationship is normal, and while it's *possible* for it to be mean-spirited, it often isn't. Anyone who wants to abolish gossip doesn't have a problem with Wikimedians' sense of propriety, they have a problem with a basic aspect of normal, human social interactions, and/or with the dedication of a worldwide community that deeply values our projects, and prioritizes their well-being. So please, let's let this one go. Let's keep our attention on more important matters -- for instance, how we can build the health, productivity, and diversity of our communities.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.
[1] I'm leaving personal names out of this post, to reduce the likelihood of this message showing up in web searches on those names. [2] http://thewikipedian.net/2014/05/30/meet-lila-tretikov-wikimedias-new-leader... [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071519.html
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
All:
In other Wikimedia-related forums, recent discussions have focused on some (alleged) comments at the Wiki Conference in New York. Apparently, some people suggested that the WMF's Executive Director should "dump" her significant other.[1] Many have expressed outrage about this. (For background, see this blog post from May 30.[2] What's described there has continued to play out in the weeks since, just not on this list.)
I think we all share a concern about the amount of "drama" in our community-wide discussions. Expressing outrage (even though it's sometimes appropriate and necessary) can often be the fuel of "drama" -- and I think it's important to explore what's been going on in relation to that principle. So, a couple points:
Point #1: Gossiping about personal relationships, including points like who should dump whom, is totally normal behavior in small group conversation.
Not outrageous -- totally normal behavior. In pretty much every social context I've ever experienced.
I think that much is easily enough to explain and excuse any of the comments people are complaining about. But in this case, there's of course more going on:
Point #2: The ED of the WMF can influence the world in significant ways, and we all have a stake in how that goes. Her first day on the job was completely overshadowed by her partner's aggressive pursuit of his own agenda. In the weeks since, that has only intensified.
When the ED responsible for the largest online community in the world declines to take decisive and effective action on something this significant, and declines to take ownership of her own introduction and priorities, many people -- both on this list and in the wider world -- will take notice, and will talk about what might, or could, or should happen next. That is the natural way of things.
One obvious "decisive action" she could take would be to "dump" her partner. Her partner underscored that their connection was a legitimate point of discussion by choosing to introduce himself entirely in reference to her in his first email to this list,[3] and by then continuing to talk about their relationship.
When the idea that she might "dump" him comes up, I doubt the main intent is ever to meddle in anybody's personal life. I have (of course) made comments like this, in many private discussions, and I wouldn't be surprised if it comes up again. It's a comment that comes up while talking about possible outcomes, and ones that might stand a chance of resolving this mess. "Dumping" is rarely a central topic of interest, simply because nobody I've talked to knows much about the relationship beyond the baffling and frightening dynamic that has played out in public.
Right now, those who care about Wikimedia are in an incomprehensible situation. The ED's partner, not the ED, is driving highly visible and influential discussions. Of course all kinds of things are being said about it, in all kinds of places. Anybody who acts surprised about that is in some kind of denial, and -- probably unintentionally -- further fueling the drama with their expressions of outrage.
Commentary about a high profile relationship is normal, and while it's *possible* for it to be mean-spirited, it often isn't. Anyone who wants to abolish gossip doesn't have a problem with Wikimedians' sense of propriety, they have a problem with a basic aspect of normal, human social interactions, and/or with the dedication of a worldwide community that deeply values our projects, and prioritizes their well-being. So please, let's let this one go. Let's keep our attention on more important matters -- for instance, how we can build the health, productivity, and diversity of our communities.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.
I really can't imagine what you hoped to achieve by sending such an e-mail to this list. Here are the ethical principles I think you're espousing:
1) Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's private personal life is acceptable 2) People who point out that this is a ridiculous position are manufacturing "outrage" to fuel drama 3) Recapping the whole sordid situation on a public, international mailing list is appropriate
Needless to say, I disagree and I imagine many others will as well. The only utility of your post seems to be as an illustration of your moral compass. I seriously doubt any further good can come from this thread, so I would be perfectly happy for a moderator to kill it.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
- Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's
private personal life is acceptable 2) People who point out that this is a ridiculous position are manufacturing "outrage" to fuel drama 3) Recapping the whole sordid situation on a public, international mailing list is appropriate
Agreed with Nathan. Please, gossip privately if you really have to.
Amount of gossips which came to me while I was on my one year break is amazing. OK, I have to say that the unofficial Master of Wikimedia Gossip was unstoppable in telling the stories to me whenever we drank alcohol, but the MWG has the sources and there are plenty of sources in the global community.
While it's unreasonable to ask everybody to refrain from gossip, I urge to make difference between the *private* gossips "he slept in her room during the conference" and "everybody thinks that she should leave her partner". Having in mind few cultural requirements, the first one is mostly harmless and could be positive, while the second one is very harmful.
However, none of those stories have the place on the public mailing list of the Wikimedia movement. Keep it for yourself, while drinking some aromatic ethanol with fellow creatures.
I have one more point to the folk subscribed to this list: If you want to reach *any* a bit more visible position inside of the movement, keep in mind that you will targets of gossip in the same way as you are gossiping now. It's normal that people know about each others' private and embarrassing moments. The way how you influence handling gossips about others is the way how it will be gossiped about you.
Besides that, in relation to Lila and Wil, it's a non-issue. Everybody knows Wil's positions and I have to say that I am thankful to Wil because of his public opening. All of the issues which Wil mentioned are practically dead from the moment when he mentioned them here.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Here are the ethical principles I think you're espousing:
I don't think you read my message very carefully.
- Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's
private personal life is acceptable
No, inaccurate. Rather: "Private speculation about other people's personal lives is to be expected, and for the most part is neither vicious nor hurtful."
- People who point out that this is a ridiculous position are
manufacturing "outrage" to fuel drama
No, I never ascribed intent, and am confident the intent to fuel drama is not there.
- Recapping the whole sordid situation on a public, international mailing
list is appropriate
No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is appropriate is that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some kind. I think the ED has far more options at her disposal than anybody else, as well as a fair amount of responsibility for it happening in the first place, but to date hasn't done anything about it. I think it's appropriate to voice concerns about a situation that appears to be having a strong impact on the existing social structure of Wikipedia.
Finger-wagging about minor gossip is a distraction from the important dynamics.
-Pete
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is appropriate is that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some kind. I think the ED has far more options at her disposal than anybody else, as well as a fair amount of responsibility for it happening in the first place, but to date hasn't done anything about it. I think it's appropriate to voice concerns about a situation that appears to be having a strong impact on the existing social structure of Wikipedia.
Finger-wagging about minor gossip is a distraction from the important dynamics.
-Pete _________________________________
You brought this nasty, hurtful gossip to a much larger stage. Wikimedia-L is a global list with many subscribers, including Wikimedia employees, Lila and Wil themselves, journalists and interested observers. Whether the rumors and deeply inappropriate commentary existed elsewhere is irrelevant to the fact that you made it much more widely known. You seem unable to understand how this kind of thing can effect real, living people with feelings. You also seem oblivious to the sexist nature of the gossip itself.
Whatever you think of Wil and Lila and Wil's role so far (and, honestly, what you think is well known since you posted your insulting comments about Lila to this list), nothing justifies exacerbating the situation by republishing hateful gossip. You seem to think the core issue, whatever it is now (Wil's effect on Lila's reputation? On her effectiveness in her job? On the reputation of WMF in general?), deserves more discussion on this list. Yet you offer no evidence of this, or even reasoning in support of it. The gossip jabs are incidental, and seem calibrated to generate just the sort of drama you claim to disdain. Feel free to try again - start a new thread, explain what you think the actual problem is, limit yourself to discussion of that problem, and we'll see what happens.
Hi,
I'm puzzled of those emails. Especially melting organisational discussions and private issues.
Who sleeps with whom is of no importance actually. What you seem to describe is someone using a personal relationship with a leader of our movement to push forward its POV.
This asks for an organisational discussion, not a personnal one. What happens in someone's private life is private.
If you believe that we're facing a leadership issue, as a movement, please say so.
Now, and this is not a first, you're hinting that there are issues on the english Wikipedia following last weeks wikimedia-l discussions. Fair enough, but what ARE those issues? (Austin asked the question I failed to find a clear answer sadly.)
From my point of view, french wikimedian, all I saw is some drama around
specific topics that stopped days ago. As far as I know, the crisis isn't going further than that. And what your email, sofar, is doing, is generating fruitless discussions.
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.
So if you want to solve the issue wp:en, one of many projects if I dare remind you, is facing could you please : * Recap the situation * Provide links to the discussions you mention * Provide organisational solutions
Then, we, the larger community you reach out to through that email, will be able to assess the situation and perhaps help you get through this.
Best,
-- Christophe
On 15 June 2014 19:49, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is appropriate
is
that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some kind. I think the ED has far more options at her disposal than anybody else, as well as a fair amount of responsibility for it happening in the first place, but to date hasn't done anything about it. I think it's appropriate to voice concerns about a situation that appears to be
having a
strong impact on the existing social structure of Wikipedia.
Finger-wagging about minor gossip is a distraction from the important dynamics.
-Pete _________________________________
You brought this nasty, hurtful gossip to a much larger stage. Wikimedia-L is a global list with many subscribers, including Wikimedia employees, Lila and Wil themselves, journalists and interested observers. Whether the rumors and deeply inappropriate commentary existed elsewhere is irrelevant to the fact that you made it much more widely known. You seem unable to understand how this kind of thing can effect real, living people with feelings. You also seem oblivious to the sexist nature of the gossip itself.
Whatever you think of Wil and Lila and Wil's role so far (and, honestly, what you think is well known since you posted your insulting comments about Lila to this list), nothing justifies exacerbating the situation by republishing hateful gossip. You seem to think the core issue, whatever it is now (Wil's effect on Lila's reputation? On her effectiveness in her job? On the reputation of WMF in general?), deserves more discussion on this list. Yet you offer no evidence of this, or even reasoning in support of it. The gossip jabs are incidental, and seem calibrated to generate just the sort of drama you claim to disdain. Feel free to try again - start a new thread, explain what you think the actual problem is, limit yourself to discussion of that problem, and we'll see what happens. _______________________________________________ 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
Christophe, Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago. Besides that, not under ED mandate.
Everything else in his behavior was behavioral problem, not substantial one.
Thus, quite irrelevant. Just if Lila opens the same questions -- and I am sure they are far from her focus -- that would become relevant.
That's known by everybody gossipping about them and thus it is quite comparable with gossips related to sex, with the addition that this one is much more destructive.
On Jun 15, 2014 8:14 PM, "Christophe Henner" christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm puzzled of those emails. Especially melting organisational discussions and private issues.
Who sleeps with whom is of no importance actually. What you seem to describe is someone using a personal relationship with a leader of our movement to push forward its POV.
This asks for an organisational discussion, not a personnal one. What happens in someone's private life is private.
If you believe that we're facing a leadership issue, as a movement, please say so.
Now, and this is not a first, you're hinting that there are issues on the english Wikipedia following last weeks wikimedia-l discussions. Fair enough, but what ARE those issues? (Austin asked the question I failed to find a clear answer sadly.)
From my point of view, french wikimedian, all I saw is some drama around specific topics that stopped days ago. As far as I know, the crisis isn't going further than that. And what your email, sofar, is doing, is generating fruitless discussions.
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.
So if you want to solve the issue wp:en, one of many projects if I dare remind you, is facing could you please :
- Recap the situation
- Provide links to the discussions you mention
- Provide organisational solutions
Then, we, the larger community you reach out to through that email, will
be
able to assess the situation and perhaps help you get through this.
Best,
-- Christophe
On 15 June 2014 19:49, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is
appropriate
is
that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some kind. I think the ED has far more options at her disposal than anybody else, as well as a fair amount of responsibility for it happening in
the
first place, but to date hasn't done anything about it. I think it's appropriate to voice concerns about a situation that appears to be
having a
strong impact on the existing social structure of Wikipedia.
Finger-wagging about minor gossip is a distraction from the important dynamics.
-Pete _________________________________
You brought this nasty, hurtful gossip to a much larger stage.
Wikimedia-L
is a global list with many subscribers, including Wikimedia employees,
Lila
and Wil themselves, journalists and interested observers. Whether the rumors and deeply inappropriate commentary existed elsewhere is
irrelevant
to the fact that you made it much more widely known. You seem unable to understand how this kind of thing can effect real, living people with feelings. You also seem oblivious to the sexist nature of the gossip itself.
Whatever you think of Wil and Lila and Wil's role so far (and, honestly, what you think is well known since you posted your insulting comments
about
Lila to this list), nothing justifies exacerbating the situation by republishing hateful gossip. You seem to think the core issue, whatever
it
is now (Wil's effect on Lila's reputation? On her effectiveness in her
job?
On the reputation of WMF in general?), deserves more discussion on this list. Yet you offer no evidence of this, or even reasoning in support of it. The gossip jabs are incidental, and seem calibrated to generate just the sort of drama you claim to disdain. Feel free to try again - start a new thread, explain what you think the actual problem is, limit
yourself to
discussion of that problem, and we'll see what happens. _______________________________________________ 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
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.
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.
On 15 June 2014 19:13, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
From my point of view, french wikimedian, all I saw is some drama around specific topics that stopped days ago. As far as I know, the crisis isn't going further than that. And what your email, sofar, is doing, is generating fruitless discussions.
Agree entirely with this. Not really sure what the original post was intended to achieve, but it doesn't seem to be doing it...
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
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
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?
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:19 PM, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
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?
Not at all -- you'll note that my statement, quoted above, was conditional. IF that action was the problem.... I have no special insight into, and no more information than you about, the strange and aggressive dynamics between these two people.
My point was straightforward: I would certainly not be bringing this topic up in a public forum if it had not been widely and extensively discussed in public forums beforehand. It was brought up by Wil, not by me. His reasons for doing so -- that's another matter entirely, and one I'm not personally inclined to get into.
Pete
On 15/06/2014 22:33, Pete Forsyth wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:19 PM, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
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?
Not at all -- you'll note that my statement, quoted above, was conditional.
It was conditional on whether making them public is the problem. But you are referring to Sinclair as 'the aggressor', regardless.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
My point was straightforward: I would certainly not be bringing this topic up in a public forum if it had not been widely and extensively discussed in public forums beforehand. It was brought up by Wil, not by me. His reasons for doing so -- that's another matter entirely, and one I'm not personally inclined to get into.
Okay, Pete.
Despite giving you ample opportunity to clarify your intentions, all I'm taking away from this is "Let's all talk about Wil some more." The consensus seems to be with me in my bewilderment.
The horse is dead. I've temporarily set your moderation bit while the appropriate funeral arrangements can be made.
Austin
Austin and all,
I'm just coming back to this, and see that I have indeed been widely interpreted as having spoken from personal animosity. My one comment on this, which I hope will be allowed through, is that I carry absolutely no personal animosity toward anybody I mentioned, and if any of them do feel that I have made a personal attack on them, I hope they will contact me directly.
Pete
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
My point was straightforward: I would certainly not be bringing this
topic
up in a public forum if it had not been widely and extensively discussed
in
public forums beforehand. It was brought up by Wil, not by me. His
reasons
for doing so -- that's another matter entirely, and one I'm not
personally
inclined to get into.
Okay, Pete.
Despite giving you ample opportunity to clarify your intentions, all I'm taking away from this is "Let's all talk about Wil some more." The consensus seems to be with me in my bewilderment.
The horse is dead. I've temporarily set your moderation bit while the appropriate funeral arrangements can be made.
Austin
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
I understand now why this would come across this way, and will put together a more focused summaryYou've done enough. Have you no sense of decency? From: peteforsyth@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation
[ childish rant ]
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I think we all share a concern about the amount of "drama" in our community-wide discussions. Expressing outrage (even though it's sometimes appropriate and necessary) can often be the fuel of "drama" -- and I think it's important to explore what's been going on in relation to that principle.
I can't say I agree. Can you sum up what you're trying to accomplish in one sentence, or refrain from dragging this list through yet another round of this topic?
Austin
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Can you sum up what you're trying to accomplish in one sentence
Well, fairly close to one sentence:
English Wikipedia is seeing a shift in how many longtime banned users are regarded, commanding substantial valuable attention from WMF trustees, staff, and volunteers. This has been brought about largely by a single individual, whose megaphone was his ability to trade on the new Executive Director's name. Instead of addressing that, many people -- some in leadership positions -- are wringing their hands over minor personal slights (i.e., the suggestion that somebody somewhere commented on somebody's personal relationship.)
or refrain from dragging this list through yet another round of this topic?
Regardless of whether this list gets dragged through it, the English Wikipedia community, some of the WMF Board of Trustees, and some of the WMF staff are already getting dragged through it, and I don't see any signs of that changing. I don't think it's a good idea to ignore this apparently escalating situation on this email list.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 15/06/2014 16:51, Pete Forsyth wrote:
English Wikipedia is seeing a shift in how many longtime banned users are
regarded, commanding substantial valuable attention from WMF trustees, staff, and volunteers. This has been brought about largely by a single individual, whose megaphone was his ability to trade on the new Executive Director's name. Instead of addressing that ...
How do you think that should have been addressed? And what is the 'shift' you are referring to?
I think Wil Sinclair's felt that 'longtime banned users' are regarded rather as lepers or pariahs or monsters by those who call themselves 'the community' and was surprised when he talked to them that some of them are not monsters. That was a welcome shift for many of us (I am a longtime banned user, as I am sure you all know, and have been called a 'troll' by some of the people on this list. Sinclair's arrival was a breath of fresh air, and it was great to see the effect.
It was a bit like having been in the trenches for a very long time and having got into the habit of lobbing grenades over the side from time to time, and just generally having got used to things being that way. Wil might have been naive (or was he?) but at least he was questioning the status quo, and perhaps it was like someone suggesting we get out of the trenches and have Christmas dinner in no man's land. (This was First World War, some time before Godwin).
So Wil brought about _something_. Whether that turns into anything valuable, remains to be seen.
Ed
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Can you sum up what you're trying to accomplish in one sentence
Well, fairly close to one sentence:
English Wikipedia is seeing a shift in how many longtime banned users are regarded, commanding substantial valuable attention from WMF trustees, staff, and volunteers. This has been brought about largely by a single individual, whose megaphone was his ability to trade on the new Executive Director's name. Instead of addressing that, many people -- some in leadership positions -- are wringing their hands over minor personal slights (i.e., the suggestion that somebody somewhere commented on somebody's personal relationship.)
Not only is that nowhere close to one sentence, but it doesn't explain what you want.
or refrain from dragging this list through yet another round of this topic?
Regardless of whether this list gets dragged through it, the English Wikipedia community, some of the WMF Board of Trustees, and some of the WMF staff are already getting dragged through it, and I don't see any signs of that changing. I don't think it's a good idea to ignore this apparently escalating situation on this email list.
Are we subscribed to the same list? It looks to me like everyone else here has moved on. I urge you to do the same.
Austin
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
it doesn't explain what you want.
For that part, read this again, which you misinterpreted. Parentheses to clarify, this time:
I don't think it's a good idea to [ignore (this apparently escalating situation) on this email list].
The situation is escalating elsewhere; you and I agree that recently this list has not paid attention recently. I don't think it's wise to consider this one "out of sight, out of mind."
-Pete
On 15/06/2014 17:11, Austin Hair wrote:
Are we subscribed to the same list? It looks to me like everyone else
here has moved on. I urge you to do the same.
Charles Ainsworth (en:user:cla68) mentioned to me an incident from his army days when a soldier got drunk and drove a Hummer into the main building of the army camp, causing about $240k of damage. The monthly camp newspaper never mentioned the incident, but just kept on with the same old round of stuff that you see in such monthly papers.
We don't need to get into the details of the sordid relationship gossip etc to discuss the main issue. There exists a Wikipedia criticism site, whose existence is rarely discussed in Wikipedia world, except briefly and dismissively. The partner of the incoming ED has been involved with the site and has commented that many of its members (some of them longterm banned users) are quite reasonable people. This has been controversial among Wikipedians in 'good standing', hence the 'gossip'. I mean, it clearly has aroused some very strong feelings. Wouldn't it be better to talk about these?
From an article about Ibsen: "The principles of Ibsen's teaching, his moral ethic, was that honesty in facing facts is the first requisite of a decent life. Human nature has dark recesses which must be explored and illuminated; life has pitfalls which must be recognized to be avoided; and society has humbugs, hypocrisies, and obscure diseases which must be revealed before they can be cured. To recognize these facts is not pessimism; it is the moral obligation laid upon intelligent people. " http://www.theatredatabase.com/19th_century/henrik_ibsen_001.html
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org