Marc Riddell writes:
The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten that people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the heart, it cannot live.
This is really an insupportable assertion. The Foundation and those who represent it are, if anything, hyperaware of the community on whose volunteer efforts we depend. That awareness factors into practically every decision we make. Anyone who tells you otherwise is speaking out of ignorance.
To name only one example: Every time we discuss Flagged Revisions at the Foundation, someone will express concern about how it might affect community participation if current edits of a sighted version are not visible (for some period of time, at least) to those who consult Wikipedia without logging in. Sometimes the person expressing concern is me -- I know from my own long-term experience in online communities that keeping people motivated to contribute is central to a community's success.
The idea that anyone at the Foundation ever forgets about the dependence of the projects on the larger community of editors is just nonsense, born out of the impulse, so common in online forums, to Assume Bad Faith.
Erik's passing reference to a 23-person organization is, when read properly, an *acknowledgement* of the larger community of volunteers -- it is precisely because the size of our organization is so small that we are so dependent on volunteers for our mission to succeed. In fact, if you look again at Erik's actual words, that very passage *stresses how essential volunteers are*. Here's the passage in question: "As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (thanks to volunteers like yourself), and I hope that we will continue to improve in that regard."
It take a lot of mental labor to read those sentences as *forgetting* about volunteers, when in fact volunteers are *expressly mentioned and given credit*,
Finally, it bears remembering that Erik's own role in the Foundation derives from his own history as a volunteer editor -- Erik's record as a contributor is exceptional by any standard, so it plainly makes no sense to suppose that Erik might even theoretically have forgotten about the importance of volunteers.
Try assuming good faith.
--Mike
Marc Riddell writes:
The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten that people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the heart, it cannot live.
on 1/8/09 4:22 PM, Mike Godwin at mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is really an insupportable assertion.
(I changed the name of this thread so that those who wish to keep their head in the sand may do so by avoiding it.)
My message is supported by the countless number of patronizing, condescending missives handed down by your group. In them the people come across as an after-thought. A linguistic analysis by several experts in the field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management.
The Foundation and those who represent it are, if anything, hyperaware of the community on whose volunteer efforts we depend. That awareness factors into practically every decision we make. Anyone who tells you otherwise is speaking out of ignorance.
To name only one example: Every time we discuss Flagged Revisions at the Foundation, someone will express concern about how it might affect community participation if current edits of a sighted version are not visible (for some period of time, at least) to those who consult Wikipedia without logging in. Sometimes the person expressing concern is me -- I know from my own long-term experience in online communities that keeping people motivated to contribute is central to a community's success.
The idea that anyone at the Foundation ever forgets about the dependence of the projects on the larger community of editors is just nonsense, born out of the impulse, so common in online forums, to Assume Bad Faith.
This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
<snip> My message is not about Eric.
The culture of product first - people second was established from the very creation of the Wikipedia Project. And it remains pretty much intact to this day.
Wales, in his past statement, was wrong. Humans will not destroy Wikipedia; but rather the total disregard of them by its leaders will.
Try assuming good faith.
I have all the faith I need: in the people.
Marc Riddell
Hello,
Having not read the original thread, I can only comment on this new thread. All the rhetoric I see here is from you, with high-minded phrases like "people are at the heart" (as if Wikimedia staff were non-people), a total lack of concrete points or examples, citing "several experts in the field", and melodramatic statements like "the total disregard of [the people] by its leaders will [destroy Wikipedia]".
If you have complaints, please be specific about what you think is wrong and what concrete actions can remedy it.
Not only that, but what the relationship between the Foundation and the community would be was extensively on this list well before the Foundation become as monolithic as it is today.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard < pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Having not read the original thread, I can only comment on this new thread. All the rhetoric I see here is from you, with high-minded phrases like "people are at the heart" (as if Wikimedia staff were non-people), a total lack of concrete points or examples, citing "several experts in the field", and melodramatic statements like "the total disregard of [the people] by its leaders will [destroy Wikipedia]".
If you have complaints, please be specific about what you think is wrong and what concrete actions can remedy it.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell writes:
The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten that people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the heart, it cannot live.
on 1/8/09 4:22 PM, Mike Godwin at mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is really an insupportable assertion.
(I changed the name of this thread so that those who wish to keep their
head
in the sand may do so by avoiding it.)
My message is supported by the countless number of patronizing, condescending missives handed down by your group. In them the people come across as an after-thought. A linguistic analysis by several experts in
the
field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group
management.
The Foundation and those who represent it are, if anything, hyperaware of the community on whose volunteer efforts we depend. That awareness factors into practically every decision we make. Anyone who tells you otherwise is speaking out of ignorance.
To name only one example: Every time we discuss Flagged Revisions at the Foundation, someone will express concern about how it might affect community participation if current edits of a sighted version are not visible (for some period of time, at least) to those who consult Wikipedia without logging in. Sometimes the person expressing concern is me -- I know from my own long-term experience in online communities that keeping people motivated to contribute is central to a community's success.
The idea that anyone at the Foundation ever forgets about the dependence of the projects on the larger community of editors is just nonsense, born out of the impulse, so common in online forums, to Assume Bad Faith.
This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring
in
the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
<snip> My message is not about Eric.
The culture of product first - people second was established from the
very
creation of the Wikipedia Project. And it remains pretty much intact to
this
day.
Wales, in his past statement, was wrong. Humans will not destroy
Wikipedia;
but rather the total disregard of them by its leaders will.
Try assuming good faith.
I have all the faith I need: in the people.
Marc Riddell
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
* was discussed extensively
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Not only that, but what the relationship between the Foundation and the community would be was extensively on this list well before the Foundation become as monolithic as it is today.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard < pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Having not read the original thread, I can only comment on this new thread. All the rhetoric I see here is from you, with high-minded phrases like "people are at the heart" (as if Wikimedia staff were non-people), a total lack of concrete points or examples, citing "several experts in the field", and melodramatic statements like "the total disregard of [the people] by its leaders will [destroy Wikipedia]".
If you have complaints, please be specific about what you think is wrong and what concrete actions can remedy it.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell writes:
The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten that people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the heart, it cannot live.
on 1/8/09 4:22 PM, Mike Godwin at mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is really an insupportable assertion.
(I changed the name of this thread so that those who wish to keep their
head
in the sand may do so by avoiding it.)
My message is supported by the countless number of patronizing, condescending missives handed down by your group. In them the people
come
across as an after-thought. A linguistic analysis by several experts in
the
field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group
management.
The Foundation and those who represent it are, if anything, hyperaware of the community on whose volunteer efforts we depend. That awareness factors into practically every decision we make. Anyone who tells you otherwise is speaking out of ignorance.
To name only one example: Every time we discuss Flagged Revisions at the Foundation, someone will express concern about how it might affect community participation if current edits of a sighted version are not visible (for some period of time, at least) to those who consult Wikipedia without logging in. Sometimes the person expressing concern is me -- I know from my own long-term experience in online communities that keeping people motivated to contribute is central to a community's success.
The idea that anyone at the Foundation ever forgets about the dependence of the projects on the larger community of editors is just nonsense, born out of the impulse, so common in online forums, to Assume Bad Faith.
This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring
in
the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
<snip> My message is not about Eric.
The culture of product first - people second was established from the
very
creation of the Wikipedia Project. And it remains pretty much intact to
this
day.
Wales, in his past statement, was wrong. Humans will not destroy
Wikipedia;
but rather the total disregard of them by its leaders will.
Try assuming good faith.
I have all the faith I need: in the people.
Marc Riddell
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- You have successfully failed!
A linguistic analysis by several experts in the field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management.
Who is "you" and what group are they meant to be managing? Are you complaining about the WMF not managing the community effectively? WMF doesn't manage its volunteer base, it keeps its hands off and lets the community sort itself out wherever possible - that's one of the reasons this project works so well.
A linguistic analysis by several experts in the field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management.
on 1/8/09 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
WMF doesn't manage its volunteer base, it keeps its hands off and lets the community sort itself out wherever possible
And when the community encounters a problem it can't seem to deal with, who can it turn to for help?
Marc
2009/1/9 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
A linguistic analysis by several experts in the field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management.
on 1/8/09 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
WMF doesn't manage its volunteer base, it keeps its hands off and lets the community sort itself out wherever possible
And when the community encounters a problem it can't seem to deal with, who can it turn to for help?
That's when we run into trouble. ArbComs help with certain problems in that regard. The proposed WikiCouncil was designed to help with some other problems, but the proposal didn't get very far (I'm sure it will come up again sooner or later).
2009/1/8 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
Marc, can you give examples of what kind of help you'd like to see?
on 1/8/09 9:20 PM, Erik Moeller at erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/8 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
Marc, can you give examples of what kind of help you'd like to see?
Yes, Erik, I can. Just two for now, it's been a long day for me and I still have tomorrow's sessions to prepare for.
* A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective and lobby-resistant ;-). This would be the person of absolute last resort in settling community-confounding problems.
*This is more of a cultural issue: I would like to see the more established members of the community be more open to criticism and dissent from within the community. As it is now that tolerance is extremely low. I'm not talking about me; I'm an old Berkeley war horse and have been called things I had to look up :-). But I have gotten private emails from persons in the community with legitimate beefs, along with some good ideas for change, but are very reluctant to voice them because of how they believe they will be received.
Erik, there are some truly terrific, bright and creative people within the greater Wikipedia Community. We really need to have a culture that makes room for them all.
Be healthy,
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/8/09 9:20 PM, Erik Moeller at erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/8 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
Marc, can you give examples of what kind of help you'd like to see?
Yes, Erik, I can. Just two for now, it's been a long day for me and I still have tomorrow's sessions to prepare for.
- A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as
well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective and lobby-resistant ;-). This would be the person of absolute last resort in settling community-confounding problems.
Why are local ArbComs insufficient for this? If the community is unable to resolve the dispute, I highly doubt someone who's a relative outsider stepping in the middle would be able to unless they just issue an official, non-negotiable edict.
*This is more of a cultural issue: I would like to see the more established members of the community be more open to criticism and dissent from within the community. As it is now that tolerance is extremely low. I'm not talking about me; I'm an old Berkeley war horse and have been called things I had to look up :-). But I have gotten private emails from persons in the community with legitimate beefs, along with some good ideas for change, but are very reluctant to voice them because of how they believe they will be received.
And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of criticism? I'm struggling to think of anything that could be done on a foundation level that would be effective here.
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
on 1/8/09 11:02 PM, Alex at mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of criticism? I'm struggling to think of anything that could be done on a foundation level that would be effective here.
Alex, your hostile attitude in both your responses prove my second point. You, and attitudes like this, are a part of the problem.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/8/09 11:02 PM, Alex at mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of criticism? I'm struggling to think of anything that could be done on a foundation level that would be effective here.
Alex, your hostile attitude in both your responses prove my second point. You, and attitudes like this, are a part of the problem.
And your attitude illustrates the problem with many (not all) of the "critics" and "dissenters." Rather than reply to my points or explain your ideas further when questioned, you choose to attack me. Those weren't rhetorical questions. I really was curious as to what you were suggesting.
2009/1/8 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
- A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as
well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective and lobby-resistant ;-). This would be the person of absolute last resort in settling community-confounding problems.
Aside from section 230 concerns, my primary concern about the appointment of any single person to such a role would be scalability across languages and projects. I continue to believe that the idea, proposed I think by GerardM, to have a Meta-ArbCom as an institution of last resort for dispute resolution could be very helpful, and easier to get off the ground than any kind of general council.
*This is more of a cultural issue: I would like to see the more established members of the community be more open to criticism and dissent from within the community.
To me, this is synonymous with openness to systemic change in general. Wikipedia[n]s tend to become resilient against systemic change as policies and practices become established and entrenched. To some extent this is necessary to serve the mission of the project. In other cases it's debatable: e.g., is a predominantly deletionist community "better" or "worse" to serve the mission of the project than a predominantly inclusionist one?
I think a fundamental inhibition against change is that people don't know how to achieve it: the lack of clarity in decision making processes is almost a usability issue. This is especially true for contentious large scale decisions. I wonder if WMF should officially "bless" certain decision-making processes, or if that would prevent innovation and experimentation.
Another method to achieve greater openness to change would be to specifically empower a group of people to conduct time-limited trials (technical trials, policy trials, etc.), on the basis of broader community suggestions. These would then be evaluated, with the final decision returned to the community as a whole. This would address the problem that any change that's highly debatable can never be tried out due to lack of consensus.
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/8 Marc Riddell:
- A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as
well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective and lobby-resistant ;-). This would be the person of absolute last resort in settling community-confounding problems.
Aside from section 230 concerns, my primary concern about the appointment of any single person to such a role would be scalability across languages and projects. I continue to believe that the idea, proposed I think by GerardM, to have a Meta-ArbCom as an institution of last resort for dispute resolution could be very helpful, and easier to get off the ground than any kind of general council.
Perhaps in the earliest days Jimbo performed that role, but even viewing all of his actions in the best possible light still leaves the insurmountable scalability problem. It is hard to imagine any other Solomon scalably capable of fulfilling the theological side of the god-king function.
The difficulty with ArbCom in this context is that it remains by nature a quasi-judicial process. Those who come before it on either side of a dispute do so with pre-established positions, often based on legalistic interpretations of literal rules. When an issue is caught up in such an adversarial maelstrom it is far more difficult to arrive at a collaborative solution. If we further treat ArbCom decisions as de facto precedents, resolution of the problems themselves, apart from the personalities involved, becomes even more difficult.
My own vision of a volunteer council absolutely did not include a Meta-ArbCom. That would almost certainly have doomed it to ineffectiveness. My belief here is based on the principle of the separation of judicial and legislative functions. Putting this in terms of the scientific method: it conflates legislative theorizing with judicial hypothesis testing.
Impossibility notwithstanding, Marc does draw attention to a serious problem.
*This is more of a cultural issue: I would like to see the more established members of the community be more open to criticism and dissent from within the community.
To me, this is synonymous with openness to systemic change in general. Wikipedia[n]s tend to become resilient against systemic change as policies and practices become established and entrenched. To some extent this is necessary to serve the mission of the project. In other cases it's debatable: e.g., is a predominantly deletionist community "better" or "worse" to serve the mission of the project than a predominantly inclusionist one?
I think a fundamental inhibition against change is that people don't know how to achieve it: the lack of clarity in decision making processes is almost a usability issue. This is especially true for contentious large scale decisions. I wonder if WMF should officially "bless" certain decision-making processes, or if that would prevent innovation and experimentation.
Another method to achieve greater openness to change would be to specifically empower a group of people to conduct time-limited trials (technical trials, policy trials, etc.), on the basis of broader community suggestions. These would then be evaluated, with the final decision returned to the community as a whole. This would address the problem that any change that's highly debatable can never be tried out due to lack of consensus.
As the one who first drew attention to the unfortunate phrase "23-member organization" I don't want Marc to be the one taking all the flak for this. I appreciate that the person who used the phrase is willing to consider Marc's points seriously, and are refraining from increasing the voltage in a Milgram experiment as some others are wont to do.
The underlying difficulties are indeed with the decision making process, the perpetual deletion/inclusion debate being only one flash-point within that larger system. We have a significant number of editors who participate actively and regularly on rules development. They spend a great deal of time on such tasks, supported by a number of like-minded individuals who readily arrive at a consensus. Often there is little or no opposition to these developments, because the largest part of the community either does not take time to follow keep up with these developments, or may not be capable of analyzing the deeper implications of these changes. Individuals who must budget their time available for contributions would much rather spend that valuable time working on articles related to their personal interests, and not on endlessly fruitless debates about the minutiæ of rules. Unless they are directly affected by the debate of the moment they won't say anything. There are no doubt comments that I made here six years ago that anticipated this state of things.
I have also consistently had serious reservations about the WMF stepping in to rescue us from ourselves. That could set a precedent. Your fear that WMF blessings might hinder innovation and experimentation is well placed. In some cases such blessings may be the only solution that works. Wisdom may require a recursive mechanism where even the blessing may be changed by following its own rules.
That we don't know how to achieve change is painfully close to the truth. There is the trite statement that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but much of what happens is not at all consistent with that statement either. That statement is nevertheless used by some to win arguments; often equating voting with democracy and concluding that voting is evil. Of course voting is evil, but only a narrow outlook upon democracy will make it equivalent to voting. The suggestion about trials strikes me as a bit gadgety, though there are no doubt specific problems where that would be the preferred way to go, and always a safeguard for community approbation.
Philosophically, we need to reflect the paradigm shift of the interconnectivity of modern communication in the way we make decisions. To some extent the change is already beginning in areas of open source and access, but we have a lot further to go before we can unlearn our old habits about how decisions are made.
Yes, I would support some WMF intervention, but I would also like to see some seriously intense sessions at Wikimania that address matters of collaborative decision making. This would involve more than a one-hour lecture plus Q&A classroom presentation. It could cover a full day, and should probably be led by someone who knows what he is doing, As many potential decision makers as possible should be encouraged to attend, and getting them there could be a major criterion for allocating scholarships to attend Wikimania.
I feel very strongly about the importance of resolving our decision making difficulties, and we can't do it by keeping our thinking in a box.
Ec
on 1/10/09 3:56 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Perhaps in the earliest days Jimbo performed that role, but even viewing all of his actions in the best possible light still leaves the insurmountable scalability problem. It is hard to imagine any other Solomon scalably capable of fulfilling the theological side of the god-king function.
The difficulty with ArbCom in this context is that it remains by nature a quasi-judicial process. Those who come before it on either side of a dispute do so with pre-established positions, often based on legalistic interpretations of literal rules. When an issue is caught up in such an adversarial maelstrom it is far more difficult to arrive at a collaborative solution. If we further treat ArbCom decisions as de facto precedents, resolution of the problems themselves, apart from the personalities involved, becomes even more difficult.
My own vision of a volunteer council absolutely did not include a Meta-ArbCom. That would almost certainly have doomed it to ineffectiveness. My belief here is based on the principle of the separation of judicial and legislative functions. Putting this in terms of the scientific method: it conflates legislative theorizing with judicial hypothesis testing.
Impossibility notwithstanding, Marc does draw attention to a serious problem.
As the one who first drew attention to the unfortunate phrase "23-member organization" I don't want Marc to be the one taking all the flak for this. I appreciate that the person who used the phrase is willing to consider Marc's points seriously, and are refraining from increasing the voltage in a Milgram experiment as some others are wont to do.
The underlying difficulties are indeed with the decision making process, the perpetual deletion/inclusion debate being only one flash-point within that larger system. We have a significant number of editors who participate actively and regularly on rules development. They spend a great deal of time on such tasks, supported by a number of like-minded individuals who readily arrive at a consensus. Often there is little or no opposition to these developments, because the largest part of the community either does not take time to follow keep up with these developments, or may not be capable of analyzing the deeper implications of these changes. Individuals who must budget their time available for contributions would much rather spend that valuable time working on articles related to their personal interests, and not on endlessly fruitless debates about the minutiæ of rules. Unless they are directly affected by the debate of the moment they won't say anything. There are no doubt comments that I made here six years ago that anticipated this state of things.
I have also consistently had serious reservations about the WMF stepping in to rescue us from ourselves. That could set a precedent. Your fear that WMF blessings might hinder innovation and experimentation is well placed. In some cases such blessings may be the only solution that works. Wisdom may require a recursive mechanism where even the blessing may be changed by following its own rules.
That we don't know how to achieve change is painfully close to the truth. There is the trite statement that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but much of what happens is not at all consistent with that statement either. That statement is nevertheless used by some to win arguments; often equating voting with democracy and concluding that voting is evil. Of course voting is evil, but only a narrow outlook upon democracy will make it equivalent to voting. The suggestion about trials strikes me as a bit gadgety, though there are no doubt specific problems where that would be the preferred way to go, and always a safeguard for community approbation.
Philosophically, we need to reflect the paradigm shift of the interconnectivity of modern communication in the way we make decisions. To some extent the change is already beginning in areas of open source and access, but we have a lot further to go before we can unlearn our old habits about how decisions are made.
Yes, I would support some WMF intervention, but I would also like to see some seriously intense sessions at Wikimania that address matters of collaborative decision making. This would involve more than a one-hour lecture plus Q&A classroom presentation. It could cover a full day, and should probably be led by someone who knows what he is doing, As many potential decision makers as possible should be encouraged to attend, and getting them there could be a major criterion for allocating scholarships to attend Wikimania.
I feel very strongly about the importance of resolving our decision making difficulties, and we can't do it by keeping our thinking in a box.
Ec
Bravo! And thank you for this, Ray.
Marc
2009/1/9 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
Erik, there are some truly terrific, bright and creative people within the greater Wikipedia Community. We really need to have a culture that makes room for them all.
I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html
You claim to be defending the community in the abstract, but don't appear to want to put in the effort to actually work directly with the people in said community.
- d.
2009/1/9 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
Erik, there are some truly terrific, bright and creative people within the greater Wikipedia Community. We really need to have a culture that makes room for them all.
on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html
You claim to be defending the community in the abstract, but don't appear to want to put in the effort to actually work directly with the people in said community.
David, if you mean the endless, circular, defensive battles that go on in the Talk Pages of the English Wikipedia, no; I am not willing to put what time I have there. The objective in such warfare seems to be to win at any cost; not a discussion to resolve issues in a cause both sides of the argument supposedly believe in and want to improve. There needs to be a better mechanism for such discussions; or, at least, a culture more skilled in the process of arbitration and decision making.
Marc Riddell
2009/1/10 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html You claim to be defending the community in the abstract, but don't appear to want to put in the effort to actually work directly with the people in said community.
David, if you mean the endless, circular, defensive battles that go on in the Talk Pages of the English Wikipedia, no; I am not willing to put what time I have there. The objective in such warfare seems to be to win at any cost; not a discussion to resolve issues in a cause both sides of the argument supposedly believe in and want to improve. There needs to be a better mechanism for such discussions; or, at least, a culture more skilled in the process of arbitration and decision making.
Yes, people are difficult to work with and remain the key problem in dealing with them. What do you propose to deal with this?
(I submit that something that absolves you of actually having to work with them and convince them is not likely to work.)
- d.
on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html You claim to be defending the community in the abstract, but don't appear to want to put in the effort to actually work directly with the people in said community.
2009/1/10 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
David, if you mean the endless, circular, defensive battles that go on in the Talk Pages of the English Wikipedia, no; I am not willing to put what time I have there. The objective in such warfare seems to be to win at any cost; not a discussion to resolve issues in a cause both sides of the argument supposedly believe in and want to improve. There needs to be a better mechanism for such discussions; or, at least, a culture more skilled in the process of arbitration and decision making.
on 1/10/09 9:48 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, people are difficult to work with and remain the key problem in dealing with them. What do you propose to deal with this?
It is the process of communication that is the problem, David, not the people. The process - not the people. Learn the difference.
Marc Riddell
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org