The issue is *about* Commons but doesn't only affect Commons, particularly the discussion around alternative methods of making not-purely-free files available and searchable across Commons. As you can see from the growing discontent with Commons, this URAA issue is not the only problem. It's merely the best recent example. The discussion you propose on Commons appears to focus purely on URAA; that's fine, a discussion like that should exist (though I object to your presumption (and odders) that the URAA RfC is discredited or nullified either by the way it was closed or by a follow-up RfC with drastically fewer participants). But the content of the various "tragedy of Commons" threads on this list and others is broader and attempts to identify and solve deeply embedded problems in the Commons culture.

So while a discussion on Commons might be easier for Commons administrators to shape and control, there is no good reason why discussion on this list (or commons-l) should be dropped in favor of a section on the Commons admin noticeboard.

Several people have replied to my latest message. I'd like to reiterate - I thought I was clear, but just to be certain:

I have never claimed that all discussion on Commons is perfect, or that incivility or poor decisions never occur there.

I did not intend to open this discussion as a free-for-all, for *any* list member with a problem with a Commons user or decision to bring it up for critique. I think there are better venues for that.

What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a "CLUB OF ZEALOTS" (emphasis mine).

Since it now looks unlikely that we'll have a response from Erik, and since several people seem to have misunderstood what I meant, let me make myself very clear.

I believe that the community of volunteers who have created Wikimedia are its greatest asset, and in spite of all its (well known and documented) problems, offer the greatest hope for Wikimedia to overcome its many challenges and flourish. I believe that the people who choose to devote time to Wikimedia as volunteers, by and large, do so out of a desire to bring our shared vision -- a world in which everyone freely shares knowledge -- closer to reality. I believe that organizations like the Wikimedia Foundation, which intend to support that vision, have the potential to be effective if they can speak to that shared vision, and undermine their own influence when they undercut it.

Lest anybody mistake this for a personal attack, I'd like to add the following.

I have known and admired Erik for many years. He has done tremendous good for the Wikimedia movement, and for the world, and my respect for him is unwavering. However, in recent months, he has joined other organizational leaders in leveling broad and unfounded insults at the volunteer community that has produced Wikimedia Commons, of which I am one.

I do not think Erik intends harm by doing this, but I think the primary outcome of this approach is harm. I am confident he is proceeding in a direction that he believes is positive. But I very strongly disagree with that, and I do not think Commons volunteers (or any Wikimedia volunteers) should have to endure broad insults coming from the leaders of an organization that, in theory, exists to support their work.

I believe this issue is much more significant than any of the other issues that have been discussed in this thread.

Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name wrote:

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons, or who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge, wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that have been raging for several months. The disputes are becoming more and more intemperate, and the positions of some editors more and more entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to pull the community back to constructive discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their comments have been drowned out in the noise.

We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these issues can be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and should focus attention on the discussion on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Dis...

Michael. _______________________________________________ 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

Hi Michael,

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:16:58 +0100 Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name wrote:

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons, or who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge, wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that have been raging for several months. The disputes are becoming more and more intemperate, and the positions of some editors more and more entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to pull the community back to constructive discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their comments have been drowned out in the noise.

We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these issues can be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and should focus attention on the discussion on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Dis...

Michael.

here's a piece of advice. After I ran into this article on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

and the corresponding "Golem effect", it changed my life for the better. Reading from it:

[ QUOTE ] The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.[1] The effect is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion.

A corollary of the Pygmalion effect is the golem effect, in which low expectations lead to a decrease in performance.[1] The Pygmalion effect and the golem effect are forms of self-fulfilling prophecy. People will take the belief they have of themselves and attribute traits of the belief with themselves and their work. This will lead them to perform closer to these expectations that they set for themselves. Within sociology, the effect is often cited with regard to education and social class. [ / QUOTE ]

After reading this, I decided that I will have high expectations of improvement from *anyone* and any community, and will practise it. So maybe some people should try to apply it in this case as well.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven_%28film%29 .

Best regards,

Shlomi Fish