On Jan 8, 2008 7:58 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
- While I believe that information that doesn't cause harm should
generally be publicized, one should not underestimate the cost of communication. Time we spend on replying to some long foundation-l or internal-l thread is time we don't spend doing the actual core work of the Foundation. Of course, one could account for some time being spent on such explanations, and one should.
In addition to being financially supported by the public, Wikimedia is able to exist only through the generous contribution of time by tens of thousands of people all over the world.
So, yes, communication is expensive but you are the glass maker complaining about the cost of sand. It's a cost of doing business.
These days it seems many users learn more about Wikimedia from leaks and reporters than they do through the official channels. Does that form of communication actually turn out to be less costly?
On Jan 9, 2008 5:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So, yes, communication is expensive but you are the glass maker complaining about the cost of sand. It's a cost of doing business.
Mhh, I have yet to see mailing list flamewars turn magically into useful products. ;-)
I'm in favor of first promoting transparency through promoting more actual volunteer participation, and secondly, through more systematic & regular reporting. The model of free-for-all debates on anything & everything attracts trolling and noise which exhaust and consume both staff and volunteers. Debating whether you should let the community vote to hire an accountant (as was recently suggested) is not a useful exercise for anyone.
These days it seems many users learn more about Wikimedia from leaks and reporters than they do through the official channels.
The fundamentally destructive nature of the leaks that have happened recently is not the actual information itself, it's that the people who have forwarded information from private lists without permission have engaged in no attempt at an actual dialog with the Foundation about when & whether the information they have leaked could be legitimately published. That makes these actions appear purely self-interested, ill-considered, or hostile, and will drive towards less internal transparency, not more, as truly sensitive information can no longer be posted to larger groups of people.
That doesn't make the information any less shocking to those reading it.
Consider the recent issue of the"secret mailing list" to "ban problem users." Now, without getting into discussions about the list itself again (I'd rather not open that again, and I hope everyone agrees). Such a list would be received badly by the community (who is already largely paranoid anyway) who commonly cry afoul of "cabals" and "secret dealings." Hell, even #wikipedia-en-admins, one of the most *open* private channels I'v ever seen has been criticised before for being overly cliquey and back-doorish.
Now, you intend to stand before us and say that those who leaked information first should've come forward and spoken with the foundation prior to letting others in on it? I'm amused.
While I am not advocating the open debate for the new accountant or business manager, I /do/ expect some level of communication from the Foundation, which does not happen nearly as often as it used to. We're seeing Sue announce a new hire every week and yet any time any critique is raised (as is considered the norm in our community, to encourage debate where appropriate), it gets dismissed with a "You don't know the big picture," or "You don't understand," or (and more commonly from some users than others), a very long-winded e-mail with intricate descriptions that no one has the time to decipher and become of a victim of tl;dr.
Trust is a two way street, it's not just me putting blind faith. Perhaps I'll trust the Foundation a bit more when they can learn to be a bit more honest and up-front with us.
Always, Chad
On Jan 9, 2008 12:57 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 5:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So, yes, communication is expensive but you are the glass maker complaining about the cost of sand. It's a cost of doing business.
Mhh, I have yet to see mailing list flamewars turn magically into useful products. ;-)
I'm in favor of first promoting transparency through promoting more actual volunteer participation, and secondly, through more systematic & regular reporting. The model of free-for-all debates on anything & everything attracts trolling and noise which exhaust and consume both staff and volunteers. Debating whether you should let the community vote to hire an accountant (as was recently suggested) is not a useful exercise for anyone.
These days it seems many users learn more about Wikimedia from leaks and reporters than they do through the official channels.
The fundamentally destructive nature of the leaks that have happened recently is not the actual information itself, it's that the people who have forwarded information from private lists without permission have engaged in no attempt at an actual dialog with the Foundation about when & whether the information they have leaked could be legitimately published. That makes these actions appear purely self-interested, ill-considered, or hostile, and will drive towards less internal transparency, not more, as truly sensitive information can no longer be posted to larger groups of people. -- Erik Möller
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Chad wrote:
Consider the recent issue of the"secret mailing list" to "ban problem users."
There was never a secret mailing list, and certainly none with any power to ban problem users. If you want to criticize people for secrecy, then starting with this non-starter is not a good way to go about it.
Now, you intend to stand before us and say that those who leaked information first should've come forward and spoken with the foundation prior to letting others in on it? I'm amused.
Why are you amused? Let me walk you through the logic here, because I think this is really important.
There is a large mailing list, Internal-l, with a lot of people on it. There are other private mailing lists, as well, such as private-l where the developers can discuss things that might be sensitive security issues, etc. These lists are structured with rules for participation and so on.
Now, people on these lists discuss and know things. They are not a Sekret Cabal, they are people like you. They are people who have chosen to take an interest in a particular part of foundation operations and gotten involved.
A lot of what gets discussed on these lists is private. Sometimes, alas, it is not private, and a frequent refrain on the list is that people are asked to take conversations to a public list if there is no reason for them to remain private. There is, on the whole, no sense on these lists that information should remain private any more than the absolute minimum necessary for a variety of perfectly sane reasons.
So, if someone is on a list, and has access to private information, and thinks, geeee.... shouldn't this be made public? Then they could just SAY SO on the list. And in the cases that I know of, the answer would have been either "yes, sure" or "yes, but could you wait until day after tomorrow so we can be sure" or similar.
And in some cases I can imagine, the answer might actually be "no". And why not? Some things really do need to be done in private.
The alternative, as Erik has pointed out, is that we have a culture where people think the foundation is being secretive and people think it is ok to randomly leak information in violation of the spirit of trust.
While I am not advocating the open debate for the new accountant or business manager, I /do/ expect some level of communication from the Foundation, which does not happen nearly as often as it used to.
I do not agree. The volume of communication from the Foundation is higher than ever. I just don't know why you would say such a thing.
--Jimbo
Erik Moeller wrote:
The fundamentally destructive nature of the leaks that have happened recently is not the actual information itself, it's that the people who have forwarded information from private lists without permission have engaged in no attempt at an actual dialog with the Foundation about when & whether the information they have leaked could be legitimately published. That makes these actions appear purely self-interested, ill-considered, or hostile, and will drive towards less internal transparency, not more, as truly sensitive information can no longer be posted to larger groups of people.
There is a great irony in this. The best thing to do, if someone has private information that they think should be made public is... ask! The answer is likely to be "yes" unless there's a really good reason, and unless we have a discussion about it, who can know?
Assume Good Faith is a really important principle here. There are people (conspiracy mongers) who have been claiming something that I think is quite contrary to fact... the idea that the Foundation is secretive is just silly.
I said this a few days ago, but I think it bears repeating. I have been on the boards of nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations, and worked in various organizations throughout my career, and I have never seen an organization as nearly-pathologically transparent as the Wikimedia Foundation.
Greg, who I respect very much, and who I do *not* count among the conspiracy mongers, said this:
These days it seems many users learn more about Wikimedia from leaks and reporters than they do through the official channels. Does that form of communication actually turn out to be less costly?
I do not think this is accurate.
--Jimbo
On Jan 9, 2008 1:10 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Greg, who I respect very much, and who I do *not* count among the conspiracy mongers, said this:
These days it seems many users learn more about Wikimedia from leaks and reporters than they do through the official channels. Does that form of communication actually turn out to be less costly?
I do not think this is accurate.
I think some people are still a little upset over the whole The Register/Ms. Doran incident. People tend to let the bad things like that leave a lingering sour taste.
Frankly, I'm so happy with the recent upsurge in openness and communication from the board that these past incidents really don't matter anymore.
--Andrew Whitworth
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org