We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some are vocal.
Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead, and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity, inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and support people that have been left out by structures of power and privilege?"
Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and from others as well.
I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope to see a lot of you there.
Kind regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Particip... [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV
How is banning an user for 1 year for secrete reasons a "bold step"? What's the educative value of it? How does it advance any of those strategic objectives you mention there?
Paulo
Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org escreveu no dia domingo, 16/06/2019 à(s) 22:03:
We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some are vocal.
Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead, and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity, inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and support people that have been left out by structures of power and privilege?"
Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and from others as well.
I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope to see a lot of you there.
Kind regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Particip... [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org wrote:
<snip>
The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and direct the Wikimedia movement? Or is its role to provide support and services to the movement's contributors, who are (collectively) its leaders? Should it impose change on projects based on its own determination of need, or respond to needs identified by project communities?
My impression is that the WMF views the noisy contributors who participate in meta discussions (and, incidentally, vote for Board elections) as a necessary evil -- and its own role as being the guarantor of the best interests of the readers, whom the movement is intended to benefit. Their sense of the gravity of any controversy among insiders is always tempered by the conviction that readers are unaffected, and will ultimately benefit. Since readers are by definition a group who cannot react to internal politics, they have no voice to criticize any decisions taken in their name.
I think this becomes the true basis of the anger and resistance on the English Wikipedia: *the sense that the WMF has declared that it is leading now, instead of supporting*. That's also the message in comments that assert the WMF has the authority to do what it likes, and no obligation to explain or justify its decisions. Each time the WMF has taken similar decisions the reaction has been similar, but as I mentioned in a previous post... They are not learning the appropriate lessons.
Hoi, Ask yourself why you do not get it as you describe them as "noisy". There is a photo of a presentation at the London Wikimania going round that describes it well. It is a long time coming and the chickens have come home to roost.
Indeed they are not learning the appropriate lessons but they is you. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 00:02, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org wrote:
<snip>
The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year.
They
have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and direct the Wikimedia movement? Or is its role to provide support and services to the movement's contributors, who are (collectively) its leaders? Should it impose change on projects based on its own determination of need, or respond to needs identified by project communities?
My impression is that the WMF views the noisy contributors who participate in meta discussions (and, incidentally, vote for Board elections) as a necessary evil -- and its own role as being the guarantor of the best interests of the readers, whom the movement is intended to benefit. Their sense of the gravity of any controversy among insiders is always tempered by the conviction that readers are unaffected, and will ultimately benefit. Since readers are by definition a group who cannot react to internal politics, they have no voice to criticize any decisions taken in their name.
I think this becomes the true basis of the anger and resistance on the English Wikipedia: *the sense that the WMF has declared that it is leading now, instead of supporting*. That's also the message in comments that assert the WMF has the authority to do what it likes, and no obligation to explain or justify its decisions. Each time the WMF has taken similar decisions the reaction has been similar, but as I mentioned in a previous post... They are not learning the appropriate lessons. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and direct the Wikimedia movement?
Personally, I don't think the WMF knows the answer to this, either in practice, or what they want.
We are in a sort of weird situation where "the WMF" often feel they don't have any power because "the community" won't let them exercise it, and/or they (as the WMF) don't feel they have enough mandate or are representative enough to do things. At the same time, most of "the community" feels they don't have any significant power or influence because the WMF makes the real decisions and no-one is ever going to pay attention to them, the individual community member.
Part of the reason the WMF has outsourced much of its long-term planning to the Movement Strategy process is because it isn't confident it has the mandate to actually make decisions like this.
Or is its role to provide support and
services to the movement's contributors, who are (collectively) its leaders? Should it impose change on projects based on its own determination of need, or respond to needs identified by project communities?
I think really it depends on the quality of leadership provided by movement contributors. Indeed, when Wikipedia was first set up the whole idea was about empowering everyone to make decisions and assuming that good-faith contributors would work issues out between them. This has turned out to not work in many important areas, for reasons that I won't attempt to go into here (and no, it's not all the WMF's fault)
I think this becomes the true basis of the anger and resistance on the English Wikipedia: *the sense that the WMF has declared that it is leading now, instead of supporting*. That's also the message in comments that assert the WMF has the authority to do what it likes, and no obligation to explain or justify its decisions. Each time the WMF has taken similar decisions the reaction has been similar, but as I mentioned in a previous post... They are not learning the appropriate lessons.
I think you have correctly identified why so many very active Wikipedians get so frustrated with the WMF. I am not sure how much light that sheds on the right solution, though.
Chris
I went ahead and offered my time to participate in the strategy process. My offer was rejected.. I do not think I will ever do it again.
I an afraid WMF is up to some surprises when they publish the 2030 Strategy which was not in any way coordinated with the communities, and then see that the communities, for whatever reason, are not interested in enthusiastically embracing it.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 11:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org wrote:
We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some are vocal.
Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead, and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity, inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and support people that have been left out by structures of power and privilege?"
Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and from others as well.
I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope to see a lot of you there.
Kind regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Particip... [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
" Previously a strategic direction has been agreed." Not by that many. It is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean whatever the WMF want it to mean and used as a justification for a wide range of policies and actions that were not obviously specifically discussed. This was mentioned at the time and we were told that this would not happen. Maybe it is already happening. Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ad Huikeshoven Sent: 16 June 2019 23:03 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities
We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some are vocal.
Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead, and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity, inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and support people that have been left out by structures of power and privilege?"
Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and from others as well.
I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope to see a lot of you there.
Kind regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Particip... [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
What is that "strategic direction", and where was it agreed?
Paulo
Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 08:20:
" Previously a strategic direction has been agreed." Not by that many. It is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean whatever the WMF want it to mean and used as a justification for a wide range of policies and actions that were not obviously specifically discussed. This was mentioned at the time and we were told that this would not happen. Maybe it is already happening. Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ad Huikeshoven Sent: 16 June 2019 23:03 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities
We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some are vocal.
Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead, and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity, inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and support people that have been left out by structures of power and privilege?"
Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and from others as well.
I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope to see a lot of you there.
Kind regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Particip... [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org