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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l