On 6/1/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte(a)infodisiac.com> wrote:
There is something hugely upsetting in the
comments I read in this thread.
It is seeing people complain things are not publicly discussed...
but who do not even comments when the issues are raised publicly.
It is seeing people complain things are not done...
but they do not do things themselves.
It is seeing people complain we do not welcome their help...
but they say no when we ask them.
Anthere, it is difficult to argue against generalisations. Several people
who argued in this thread are doing a lot,
be it in Mediawiki activities that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the
board or any subcommittee. Do you accept critical remarks only from people
that you work with every day?
Clearly all comments in this thread are here because an issue was indeed
raised publicly, namely about Mediawiki core values.
I for one consider it good taste not to reply on a thread unless I feel I
have something new to contribute and feel strongly about the issue.
So from me no 'yes, I think so too' replies. Actually I only send part of
the replies that I write and occasionaly only after several revisions and
more thought. Hopelessly out of touch with the IRC generation.
If people are overdemanding here and plainly work-shy everywhere else please
Even then, it is one of the preconditions for a non-autocratic system that
people in a position of power answer to the public at large regardless of
what specific members of the public are doing themselves, at least those
members read posts and ask questions and show they are involved to a certain
In the outside world, in established political systems of any kind, power
corrupts almost without exception. Lip service is paid to a free press until
one has to deal with those 'press mosquitos' oneself, those people who
'always whine' and 'should start to do somethings themselves for the country
instead of scandalizing good people' etc etc. Clearly we do things
differently here and need not worry, or do we?
If your answer to people who ask critical questions is to discredit them, I
start to worry even more that Wikimedia has come close to the outside world.
Please let us not get personal. I respect your work for Mediawiki a lot.
Please assume good faith of others.
Erik, you do fantastic work on gathering the stats on Wikipedia
project activity  - and that's the kind of work that needs to be
consolidated within the organisational level. The board need stats (I
hear), and one of the remits of the Special Projects Committee is to
coordinate these efforts  - along with the pretty inactive
Wikimedia Research Network . Maybe you should be recognised better
for this work, and work with the SPC in this regard (?).
I didn't mean to include you in my previous statement (on another
thread) that "people who are complaining aren't bothering to get
involved". In fact, that's unfair in many cases - of course there are
plenty of people who do great work who raise good and valid
criticisms, which we need to address in order to grow and learn as an
organisation. If you remember, we had a discussion like this on this
list after last year's Wikimania, around the time of Erik Moeller's
resignation as chief research officer.
But I still think Anthere has a point, and I understand her
frustration (which, hopefully, as a result of this discussion, is
being addressed). She's one of these people who *are* the Wikimedia
Foundation - living it, breathing it. I should probably let her speak
for herself, but I myself feel that, with Anthere around, the
foundation is in *very* good hands.