I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good place to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives, or not.

Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a verifiable answer.

Fae

On Tue, 7 May 2019, 10:44 Dan Garry (Deskana), djgwiki@gmail.com wrote:

I think the correct venue to ask for such a large, cross-cutting, strategic commitment would be with the strategy process working groups, and not this mailing list. Did you try engaging with them?

Dan

On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 09:35, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

With all of the strategy discussions still on-going, it would be good to know where the long term public archive of our Wikimedia projects sits within it.

As has been mentioned on this list previously, when volunteers donate to the Internet Archive, there is some comfort that their efforts in helping preserve public domain media will be accessible and archived for 100 years.

I have been unable to work out what the Wikimedia Foundations commitment is to maintaining a publicly accessible project archive. I may be wrong and would love to have someone post a link that puts me right, but based on past discussions, I suspect that if a project gets closed or mothballed, there is no specific commitment to fund public access to any archives. The WMF may be unable to match the 100 year commitment that the Internet Archive plans for, but it would be jolly nice to have a commitment to something and have that promoted in the long term strategy.

The best example I can think of is Wikimedia Commons as this is a significant size, so committing to maintaining a 10 or 20 year archive (not just an operational backup) is not an insignificant thing to find publicly accessible server space for or earmark a specific budget for.

Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

---

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 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 Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good place to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives, or not.

Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a verifiable answer.

I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!

Dan

I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB. That's large but not astronomical.

With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a year. Using off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the latest archive.

It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with an independently managed archive in another country, that at least makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to do anything about the public archive hosted by a different organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.

If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already, and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily physically host the archives each year and would probably like the idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their values and commitments.

Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally, if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather simple question publicly?

Thanks, Fae

Thanks for the reply! Especially from an official WMF Community and Audience Engagement Associate.

Can we take it from your defensive email it is a fact that the WMF has no known long term archive strategy?

By the way, in your apparent opinion we may be unimportant people on an email list, but we have a long history of taking the initiative to fundamentally shape the WMF, and not that long ago took action that ensured a board member resigned and the WMF establish radically different good governance practices. Not a bad record for loner unpaid volunteers.

Thanks in advance, Fae

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:38, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:

Because the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make long term strategic decisions based off of a 4 person discussion on a mailing list.

I really don't know why people keep being surprised by this.

Seddon

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:11 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB. That's large but not astronomical.

With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a year. Using off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the latest archive.

It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with an independently managed archive in another country, that at least makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to do anything about the public archive hosted by a different organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.

If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already, and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily physically host the archives each year and would probably like the idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their values and commitments.

Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally, if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather simple question publicly?

Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members' responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.

In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is that WMF has a very mixed record on responsiveness. Some employees and board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while

other

...

employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people

are

...

in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple managers in WMF, and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know

of

...

no excuses for it.

Pine

( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana) djgwiki@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

On Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good

place

...

to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public

archives,

...

...

...

or not.

Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process

groups

...

...

...

are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a

verifiable

...

answer.

I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!

Dan _______________________________________________ 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 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 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

-- Seddon

*Community and Audience Engagement Associate* *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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

Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally. Fae is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how) the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.

The movement strategy process is very broad, and contains a lot of diverse ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be improved, maintained, developed and supported. I'm pretty deep in the strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to the point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be one of the more important ones. I hope I am not presuming too much, but I think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of the mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or who pays for it.

Risker/Anne

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally, the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy a different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress needs to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre. _______________________________________________ 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

Philippe you are absolutely correct. Whilst I never commented on the importance of any individual on this list nor the questioned the record of anyone I admit that my tone was not what this list deserves. I also concur there are merits to Fae's point.

However the intention behind my point is one I stand by. The switch from a sound reasonable query into one laced with bad faith, poisoned the well. It jumped immediately to an assumption that this was down to unwillingness of senior staff to address the point. That's not healthy.

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because this list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get acknowledged or answered.

I have never shied from engaging here and I and others want to be able, in good faith, be able to recommend and encourage fellow colleague and volunteers to participate in this venue but I and many others can't do that.

So I recognise that I should have approached my feedback on tone in a more constructive manner and set a good example. It stemmed from a deep-rooted frustration that I offer my apologies for allowing that to dictate the the tone of my response. But if we want to see staff members more actively participating here then those long standing individuals need to really thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to languish and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this list faces.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:57 AM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:

This. What Risker said. Fae raises a fair point. And while the Foundation certainly does not make policy based off of small discussions on mailing list, it should (and used to) listen to those lists, and use them to aid in decisions about what policy to make.

I like you a lot Joseph, but I’m afraid your comment here was regrettable. Nobody here was suggesting that the foundation make that policy based off of the small group discussion, whether in a public mailing list or otherwise. However, a long time valued member of the community was raising a reasonable question. It deserves a better answer than that.

Respectfully, and with great fondness, Philippe

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:

...

Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.

Fae

...

is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how) the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.

The movement strategy process is very broad, and contains a lot of

diverse

...

ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be improved, maintained, developed and supported. I'm pretty deep in the strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to

the

...

point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation

will

...

make and keep useful information from its projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be

one

...

of the more important ones. I hope I am not presuming too much, but I think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of

the

...

mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it

or

...

who pays for it.

Risker/Anne

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

...

The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.

Additionally,

...

the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to

its

...

projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites

and

...

media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as

short-term

...

...

tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to

occupy

...

a

...

different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress

needs

...

to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre. _______________________________________________ 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 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

-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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

Asaf,

Perhaps there is a mismatch of expectations here. The trustees and the senior staff of the WMF are the leaders of the movement and we may presume that they know how to do their job. It is for them to decide on the way they wish to engage with the community they lead, and they have many ways of doing so. Indeed, there is an elaborate strategy consultation taking place at many levels right now. One should not confuse a well-thought-out process for community engagement with one particular vehicle for engagement, such as this mailing list. If seniot staff find that reading, or responding to, this mailing list does not constitute the most effective means for them to achieve their leadership goals, then why should anyone insist that they use it, and thereby spend their valuable time being less effective in their leadership roles?

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe. It's true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on their part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself, and you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call out bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and my co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to be on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial to listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF responses to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions may have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list -- and, I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence that has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my volunteer capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list). While I have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion been scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the best of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try to respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by me to ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk pages) have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to really thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is within WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are awaiting their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list as a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would like to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my words, then perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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

Likewise. I often refrain from commenting when I think it is more collaborative and peaceful to do so, though.

dj "pundit"

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:00 PM James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.commailto:jmh649@gmail.com> wrote: As I trustee, I read and generally find this mailing list useful. Per the comments around movement hierarchy, we have many leaders of our movement on this list. While the WMF trustees and senior staff may be the official leaders of the WMF we do not consider ourselves "the" leaders of the community. We are simple a few of the many leaders within this movement.

Best James

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:24 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.commailto:thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:

Asaf,

Perhaps there is a mismatch of expectations here. The trustees and the senior staff of the WMF are the leaders of the movement and we may presume that they know how to do their job. It is for them to decide on the way they wish to engage with the community they lead, and they have many ways of doing so. Indeed, there is an elaborate strategy consultation taking place at many levels right now. One should not confuse a well-thought-out process for community engagement with one particular vehicle for engagement, such as this mailing list. If seniot staff find that reading, or responding to, this mailing list does not constitute the most effective means for them to achieve their leadership goals, then why should anyone insist that they use it, and thereby spend their valuable time being less effective in their leadership roles?

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov <asaf.bartov@gmail.commailto:asaf.bartov@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon <jseddon@wikimedia.orgmailto:jseddon@wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And

yet

...

...

it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list,

the

...

...

unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most

active

...

...

participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not

get

...

...

acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.

It's

...

true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on

their

...

part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself,

and

...

you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call

out

...

bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and

my

...

co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to

be

...

on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial

to

...

listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF

responses

...

to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions

may

...

have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list --

and,

...

I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence

that

...

has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my

volunteer

...

capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list). While I have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion

been

...

scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the

best

...

of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try

to

...

respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by me to ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk

pages)

...

have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to really thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who

do

...

...

so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is within WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are

awaiting

...

their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list

as

...

a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would

like

...

to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my words,

then

...

perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---

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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

*

Are they really "leaders of the movement"? P

-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 15 May 2019 08:40 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

Asaf,

Perhaps there is a mismatch of expectations here. The trustees and the senior staff of the WMF are the leaders of the movement and we may presume that they know how to do their job. It is for them to decide on the way they wish to engage with the community they lead, and they have many ways of doing so. Indeed, there is an elaborate strategy consultation taking place at many levels right now. One should not confuse a well-thought-out process for community engagement with one particular vehicle for engagement, such as this mailing list. If seniot staff find that reading, or responding to, this mailing list does not constitute the most effective means for them to achieve their leadership goals, then why should anyone insist that they use it, and thereby spend their valuable time being less effective in their leadership roles?

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe. It's true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on their part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself, and you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call out bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and my co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to be on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial to listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF responses to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions may have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list -- and, I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence that has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my volunteer capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list). While I have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion been scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the best of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try to respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by me to ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk pages) have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to really thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is within WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are awaiting their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list as a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would like to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my words, then perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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 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

Yes, Asaf is absolutely spot on. Though I am afraid it is a small part of a bigger problem.

Cheers Yaroslav

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:54 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

Hoi, Asaf thank you very much. This response of yours helps build bridges. Thanks, GerardM

On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 03:17, Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:

...

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And

yet

...

...

it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list,

the

...

...

unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most

active

...

...

participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not

get

...

...

acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.

It's

...

true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on

their

...

part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself,

and

...

you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call

out

...

bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and

my

...

co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to

be

...

on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial

to

...

listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF

responses

...

to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions

may

...

have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list --

and,

...

I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence

that

...

has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my

volunteer

...

capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list). While I have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion

been

...

scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the

best

...

of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try

to

...

respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by me to ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk

pages)

...

have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to really thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who

do

...

...

so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is within WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are

awaiting

...

their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list

as

...

a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would

like

...

to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my words,

then

...

perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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 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 is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project? They often say so, but in practice I do not see any. This list used to be the one, but it does not carry out this function. The corresponding part of Meta is dead, questions never get answered. Some (very few, as far as I can tell), WMF staff members are also active as volunteers, but they do not serve as liasons between WMF and communities, at least I do not see any indication that they would welcome these questions asked as their talk pages. Every time I see a WMF staffer on one of the projects I am active in, this is a one-way communication mode, not a dialogue.

Well, may be WMF does not need these channels, but then I do not understand why they continue claiming they are listening to the community. In my experience, this is not the case.

Cheers Yaroslav

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:16 PM Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:

I do not think we should assign blame to those who left this list during and because of the periods of toxicity, and who are disinclined to participate here because of the memories of that and a continued perceived unhealthiness in the tone. Their decision to leave was a valid one.

Not respecting that choice I suspect would just reaffirm their suspicions and reinforces the lack of desire to commit here. A significantly more positive tone needs to be made and a much more conciliatory stance taken. Otherwise we all might as well pack our bags.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:

...

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And

yet

...

...

it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list,

the

...

...

unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most

active

...

...

participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not

get

...

...

acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.

It's

...

true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on

their

...

part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself,

and

...

you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call

out

...

bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and

my

...

co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to

be

...

on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial

to

...

listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF

responses

...

to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions

may

...

have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list --

and,

...

I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence

that

...

has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my

volunteer

...

capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list). While I have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion

been

...

scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the

best

...

of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try

to

...

respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by me to ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk

pages)

...

have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to really thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who

do

...

...

so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is within WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are

awaiting

...

their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list

as

...

a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would

like

...

to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my words,

then

...

perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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 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 Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:26 AM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:

This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to

participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project?

I am a product manager at the Wikimedia Foundation. What this means, in the broadest of terms, is that I need to know what people want/need in order to do my job “correctly,” for some definition of “correct.” Of course, what constitutes a “correct” decision on my part is something not everyone will agree on and that’s fine. But I need to gather information as part of this work.

The problem is that there is no “one” place to go. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem, there are over 900 wikis. Hundreds of those wikis comprise Wikipedia, a project with a cumulative total of 50,000,000 articles. Each one of those articles either has a talk page or could theoretically get one as soon as someone makes the first post. So, just starting with Wikipedia articles, we have over 50,000,000 potential or existing discussion venues, with very little coordination or cross-organization between these venues, and this doesn’t even include individual user talk pages or really, really specific talk pages like “Wikipedia talk:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents” which is... very precisely, a venue to discuss the administration of that specific noticeboard (but not to, itself, host noticeboard-like posts).[0]

It is very convenient and easy to create a talk page because talk pages are a very central paradigm to the MediaWiki software (going back to 2002? 2003?) and so they are built into the overall website experience in a way that things that were tacked on way later, simply are not. But it is a poor interface that doesn’t scale across more than several people or a few concurrent conversations. But if Wikipedia’s fundamental sidebar chat system fails to support more than occasional chatter, how exactly is any of this supposed to work?

There are two ways to go from here: (a) fix the original problem or (b) develop workarounds. If you were around back in 2013 or so you may recall a project called “Flow” that is now called “Structured Discussions.” I can’t speak officially to any of it because it was before my time and many of the staff involved no longer work here. And I am actually very hesitant to bring it up at all, much less by name, because of the taboo that developed around it. A retrospective on this project is out-of-scope for this post, but if you need a short and convenient answer: it didn’t work, and it generally made it impossible for the Wikimedia Foundation to even broach the subject for the following several years. (There is starting to be work on this again, and this time, it seems to be going at a more deliberate pace, but I will defer to the staff working on this.)

Let’s talk about workarounds. We have workarounds that make the talk pages themselves more useful (talk page archiving comes to mind[1]), and we also have workarounds that consist of outsourcing the issue entirely, whether it be solutions we host ourselves (mailing lists, Discourse) or proprietary platforms that happen to be convenient for large segments of our communities. There are different advantages and disadvantages to each solution, which has only resulted in the proliferation of solutions.

Let’s back up. On the wikis themselves there are millions of discussion venues; there are different software interventions that work or don’t work, depending on the situation; and we are now in a position where we have so many places to hold conversations it becomes an extraordinary use of time (and several people’s full time jobs) to try to understand the extraordinarily complex social interactions that take place in the hundreds of languages we speak.

Having introduced all that context, the short answer to your question is there are some channels we are better at paying attention to than others, but we don’t know what we don’t know. And this is frustrating for everyone involved. It makes projects take longer, it makes it harder to onboard staff, and I can imagine it’s *even more* frustrating for the many users of our many wikis who have to deal with the software being broken and not really knowing what to do. I think we manage, but I think we deserve better than just “managing” it.

My best regards, James Hare

[0] This brings up another topic that not all discussions that take place on Wikipedia happen on discussion pages. Also, there are over 50,000,000 Wikidata items, and almost none of them have talk pages, but theoretically *all of them* can.

[1] I remember when Werdna wrote the first talk page archiving bot in 2006. I thought it was cool that someone did that, but looking back on it, I wonder why I was happy with that as a solution – it seems really convoluted in retrospect.

...

positive tone needs to be made and a much more conciliatory stance taken. Otherwise we all might as well pack our bags.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who

is

...

...

carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And

yet

...

...

it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook

because

...

...

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails

are

...

...

...

written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list,

the

...

...

unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most

active

...

...

participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not

get

...

...

acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.

It's

...

true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in

the

...

...

past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members,

have

...

...

left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on

their

...

part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself,

and

...

you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call

out

...

bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I

and

...

my

...

co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff

to

...

be

...

on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial

to

...

listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF

responses

...

to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions

may

...

have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list --

and,

...

I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or

not

...

...

to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence

that

...

has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my

volunteer

...

capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list). While I have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion

been

...

scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the

best

...

of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer

try

...

to

...

respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by me

to

...

...

ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk

pages)

...

have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to

really

...

...

...

thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those

who

...

do

...

...

so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and

my

...

...

...

fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment

this

...

...

...

list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is within WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond

to

...

...

questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are

awaiting

...

their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list

as

...

a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would

like

...

to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my words,

then

...

perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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 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 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

Asaf :) Thank you. Yes let us use this list well + with respect. Moderation has been much appreciated.

Yaroslav: +1 to all of that!

James: There were /Talk subpages already in 2001 ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Milestones_2001#July_2001

The pursuit of a generalized solution is important. It also seems fair to have a *single page* on {meta, other?} for a WMF noticeboard. Either a section of the m:Wikimedia Forum https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum, or a separate page. With translations provided where needed. Then anyone who runs across discussions elsewhere (including on this list) that want a specifically WMF response can point people there (and even summarize the Q in a sentence on the noticeboard, if they wish to facilitate).

A small set of response templates may also be helpful, to invite dialogue and partial answers. "interesting, I also care about this topic", "not sure there's an answer atm", "not sure I'm in a position to answer, but here's part of it" "this is a perennial question (link to archive)". "this is a perennial flame war, is there a more constructive version that might be answerable?"

Everyone benefits from a good central space for Q&A since it is needed for so many ideas and projects that are promoted -- you could also send those topical q&as (currently done on a number of separate wiki fora) back to an umbrella section on such a noticeboard.

SJ

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:04 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:

Hi James,

thank you for the answer, appreciated.

Specifically about on-wiki communication, I possibly misunderstand the situation, but out of 900+ projects you mention, some are dead (no regular editors), and a vast majority is still in the regime when a few active users can follow the recent edit list. (I am admin on the Russian Wikivoyage and I have checked every single edit there since its transfer to WMF in 2012 - we currently have about a hundred per day). All these projects only have one noticeboards (typically accessible from the panel on the left as Community Portal, or, of not, it can be easily located). Again, at the Russian Wikivoyage, except for the very first cuple of months, when we were coordinating transfer from the Wikitravel, I can not recollect any WMF-related person who was interested in discussing anything. We get useful announcements (typically related to software), but the only time we had something else (the beginning of the current strategy cycle), we did not get an impression anybody was interested in listening to us.

Now, bigger projects - there are may be 30 or so of them where one can not follow the recent changes (the vast majority being Wikipedias, plus Commons, Wikidata, and possibly English and German Wikivoyages and a couple of more projects). The absolute majority of these also have one central place (typically, again linked to Community portal), where things should be discussed. I would think that a WMF representative trying to discuss smth at a particular article talk page - it is not impossible, but as a community member I would find this odd - at the very least, it should be a pointer to that discussion.

Finally, there are some really big projects, where one can several village pumps without an obvious choice. I am obviously more familiar with the English Wikipedia, and indeed RfCs can proliferate anywhere (even though there is a central place one cal locate all of them), and it might be a bit tricky to find a correct one, but in all cases I have seen if the topic is even remotely connected to WMF business (and sometimes even when it is not connected to it at all) somebody would ping one, or two, or five WMF employees - who could come and engage ina discussion, or come and say they are not interested, or not come at all - which is fine, obviously reasonable people do not expect A-level employees to react to every ping anywhere in the Wikimedia universe - but at least I think these discussion places are reasonably well localized and are easy to follow if anybody is interested in. I am, again, not saying that WMF employees should follow all discussion on all projects - or even that they should check several selected pages every day - but some communication channel much exist. In my experience, most of the reasonable questions just simply get ignored - which obviously creates an impression that nobody is listening to the community.

Cheers Yaroslav

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:31 PM James Hare jhare@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:26 AM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to

participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project?

I am a product manager at the Wikimedia Foundation. What this means, in

the

...

broadest of terms, is that I need to know what people want/need in order

to

...

do my job “correctly,” for some definition of “correct.” Of course, what constitutes a “correct” decision on my part is something not everyone

will

...

agree on and that’s fine. But I need to gather information as part of

this

...

work.

The problem is that there is no “one” place to go. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem, there are over 900 wikis. Hundreds of

those

...

wikis comprise Wikipedia, a project with a cumulative total of 50,000,000 articles. Each one of those articles either has a talk page or could theoretically get one as soon as someone makes the first post. So, just starting with Wikipedia articles, we have over 50,000,000 potential or existing discussion venues, with very little coordination or cross-organization between these venues, and this doesn’t even include individual user talk pages or really, really specific talk pages like “Wikipedia talk:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents” which is... very precisely, a venue to discuss the administration of that specific noticeboard (but not to, itself, host noticeboard-like posts).[0]

It is very convenient and easy to create a talk page because talk pages

are

...

a very central paradigm to the MediaWiki software (going back to 2002? 2003?) and so they are built into the overall website experience in a way that things that were tacked on way later, simply are not. But it is a

poor

...

interface that doesn’t scale across more than several people or a few concurrent conversations. But if Wikipedia’s fundamental sidebar chat system fails to support more than occasional chatter, how exactly is any

of

...

this supposed to work?

There are two ways to go from here: (a) fix the original problem or (b) develop workarounds. If you were around back in 2013 or so you may

recall a

...

project called “Flow” that is now called “Structured Discussions.” I

can’t

...

speak officially to any of it because it was before my time and many of

the

...

staff involved no longer work here. And I am actually very hesitant to bring it up at all, much less by name, because of the taboo that

developed

...

around it. A retrospective on this project is out-of-scope for this post, but if you need a short and convenient answer: it didn’t work, and it generally made it impossible for the Wikimedia Foundation to even broach the subject for the following several years. (There is starting to be

work

...

on this again, and this time, it seems to be going at a more deliberate pace, but I will defer to the staff working on this.)

Let’s talk about workarounds. We have workarounds that make the talk

pages

...

themselves more useful (talk page archiving comes to mind[1]), and we

also

...

have workarounds that consist of outsourcing the issue entirely, whether

it

...

be solutions we host ourselves (mailing lists, Discourse) or proprietary platforms that happen to be convenient for large segments of our communities. There are different advantages and disadvantages to each solution, which has only resulted in the proliferation of solutions.

Let’s back up. On the wikis themselves there are millions of discussion venues; there are different software interventions that work or don’t

work,

...

depending on the situation; and we are now in a position where we have so many places to hold conversations it becomes an extraordinary use of time (and several people’s full time jobs) to try to understand the extraordinarily complex social interactions that take place in the

hundreds

...

of languages we speak.

Having introduced all that context, the short answer to your question is there are some channels we are better at paying attention to than others, but we don’t know what we don’t know. And this is frustrating for

everyone

...

involved. It makes projects take longer, it makes it harder to onboard staff, and I can imagine it’s *even more* frustrating for the many users

of

...

our many wikis who have to deal with the software being broken and not really knowing what to do. I think we manage, but I think we deserve better than just “managing” it.

My best regards, James Hare

[0] This brings up another topic that not all discussions that take place on Wikipedia happen on discussion pages. Also, there are over 50,000,000 Wikidata items, and almost none of them have talk pages, but

theoretically

...

*all of them* can.

[1] I remember when Werdna wrote the first talk page archiving bot in

...

I thought it was cool that someone did that, but looking back on it, I wonder why I was happy with that as a solution – it seems really

convoluted

...

in retrospect.

...

...

positive tone needs to be made and a much more conciliatory stance

taken.

...

...

Otherwise we all might as well pack our bags.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one

who

...

is

...

...

carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon <

jseddon@wikimedia.org

...

...

...

...

wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of

good

...

...

...

...

suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a

sound

...

...

...

...

...

mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time

and

...

...

...

...

movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content.

And

...

...

yet

...

...

it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most

worthwhile

...

...

...

...

...

constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook

because

...

...

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when

emails

...

...

are

...

...

...

written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this

list,

...

...

the

...

...

unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most

active

...

...

participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will

not

...

...

get

...

...

acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you

describe.

...

...

...

It's

...

true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants

in

...

...

the

...

...

past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members,

have

...

...

left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake

on

...

...

...

their

...

part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior

yourself,

...

...

and

...

you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to

call

...

...

out

...

bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed,

I

...

...

and

...

my

...

co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring

staff

...

...

to

...

be

...

on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue

crucial

...

...

to

...

listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF

responses

...

to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage

here.

...

...

...

...

Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better

engagement

...

on

...

...

...

Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving,

searchability,

...

...

...

...

access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose

questions

...

...

may

...

have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however

briefly,

...

to

...

...

...

prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list

--

...

...

and,

...

I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even

a

...

...

...

...

response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question,

or

...

...

not

...

...

to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony

silence

...

...

...

that

...

has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my

volunteer

...

capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list).

While I

...

...

...

have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on

occasion

...

...

been

...

scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to

the

...

...

best

...

of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in

someone

...

...

...

...

else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no

longer

...

...

try

...

to

...

respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a

perfectly

...

...

...

reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by

me

...

to

...

...

ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk

pages)

...

have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this

list's

...

...

...

subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to

really

...

...

...

thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly

those

...

...

who

...

do

...

...

so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue

to

...

...

...

...

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will

slowly

...

...

...

...

...

disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up

and

...

my

...

...

...

fear is that it will on go away through the increasing

abandonment

...

...

this

...

...

...

list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is

within

...

...

...

WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at

WMF

...

...

...

could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to

respond

...

to

...

...

questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are

awaiting

...

their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this

list

...

...

as

...

a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience

and

...

...

...

diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me)

would

...

...

...

like

...

to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my

words,

...

...

then

...

perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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 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 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

--

*James Hare* (he/him) Associate Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ 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 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

The thing is, we have a number of tools with a lot of cultural/behavioral as.well as.technological heritage.

Yes, it would be nice to have a stable one point of entry communication. Unfortunately, even investing a lot in tech does not warrant a success.

People tend to the most co..on denominator, this is why texting is still around.

But I agree that a bigger discussion about decision making and discussing online is needed. This is exactly a part of our strategic exercise and I hope the group will address the issue.

Best,

Dariusz

On Thu, 16 May 2019, 08:34 Mister Thrapostibongles, <thrapostibongles@gmail.commailto:thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote: James

This seems inside-out. Rather than WMF staff trying to guess which of the tens of thousands of existing discussions might be of relevance, why not simply tell the community the locations of the pages or other channels which you propose to use to engage them.

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:31 PM James Hare <jhare@wikimedia.orgmailto:jhare@wikimedia.org> wrote:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:26 AM Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.commailto:ymbalt@gmail.com> wrote:

...

This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to

participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project?

I am a product manager at the Wikimedia Foundation. What this means, in the broadest of terms, is that I need to know what people want/need in order to do my job “correctly,” for some definition of “correct.” Of course, what constitutes a “correct” decision on my part is something not everyone will agree on and that’s fine. But I need to gather information as part of this work.

The problem is that there is no “one” place to go. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem, there are over 900 wikis. Hundreds of those wikis comprise Wikipedia, a project with a cumulative total of 50,000,000 articles. Each one of those articles either has a talk page or could theoretically get one as soon as someone makes the first post. So, just starting with Wikipedia articles, we have over 50,000,000 potential or existing discussion venues, with very little coordination or cross-organization between these venues, and this doesn’t even include individual user talk pages or really, really specific talk pages like “Wikipedia talk:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents” which is... very precisely, a venue to discuss the administration of that specific noticeboard (but not to, itself, host noticeboard-like posts).[0]

It is very convenient and easy to create a talk page because talk pages are a very central paradigm to the MediaWiki software (going back to 2002? 2003?) and so they are built into the overall website experience in a way that things that were tacked on way later, simply are not. But it is a poor interface that doesn’t scale across more than several people or a few concurrent conversations. But if Wikipedia’s fundamental sidebar chat system fails to support more than occasional chatter, how exactly is any of this supposed to work?

There are two ways to go from here: (a) fix the original problem or (b) develop workarounds. If you were around back in 2013 or so you may recall a project called “Flow” that is now called “Structured Discussions.” I can’t speak officially to any of it because it was before my time and many of the staff involved no longer work here. And I am actually very hesitant to bring it up at all, much less by name, because of the taboo that developed around it. A retrospective on this project is out-of-scope for this post, but if you need a short and convenient answer: it didn’t work, and it generally made it impossible for the Wikimedia Foundation to even broach the subject for the following several years. (There is starting to be work on this again, and this time, it seems to be going at a more deliberate pace, but I will defer to the staff working on this.)

Let’s talk about workarounds. We have workarounds that make the talk pages themselves more useful (talk page archiving comes to mind[1]), and we also have workarounds that consist of outsourcing the issue entirely, whether it be solutions we host ourselves (mailing lists, Discourse) or proprietary platforms that happen to be convenient for large segments of our communities. There are different advantages and disadvantages to each solution, which has only resulted in the proliferation of solutions.

Let’s back up. On the wikis themselves there are millions of discussion venues; there are different software interventions that work or don’t work, depending on the situation; and we are now in a position where we have so many places to hold conversations it becomes an extraordinary use of time (and several people’s full time jobs) to try to understand the extraordinarily complex social interactions that take place in the hundreds of languages we speak.

Having introduced all that context, the short answer to your question is there are some channels we are better at paying attention to than others, but we don’t know what we don’t know. And this is frustrating for everyone involved. It makes projects take longer, it makes it harder to onboard staff, and I can imagine it’s *even more* frustrating for the many users of our many wikis who have to deal with the software being broken and not really knowing what to do. I think we manage, but I think we deserve better than just “managing” it.

My best regards, James Hare

[0] This brings up another topic that not all discussions that take place on Wikipedia happen on discussion pages. Also, there are over 50,000,000 Wikidata items, and almost none of them have talk pages, but theoretically *all of them* can.

[1] I remember when Werdna wrote the first talk page archiving bot in 2006. I thought it was cool that someone did that, but looking back on it, I wonder why I was happy with that as a solution – it seems really convoluted in retrospect.

...

...

positive tone needs to be made and a much more conciliatory stance

taken.

...

...

Otherwise we all might as well pack our bags.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov <asaf.bartov@gmail.commailto:asaf.bartov@gmail.com>

wrote:

...

...

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one

who

...

is

...

...

carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon <jseddon@wikimedia.orgmailto:jseddon@wikimedia.org

...

...

wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of

good

...

...

...

...

suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time

and

...

...

...

...

movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content.

And

...

...

yet

...

...

it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook

because

...

...

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails

are

...

...

...

written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this

list,

...

...

the

...

...

unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most

active

...

...

participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will

not

...

...

get

...

...

acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.

It's

...

true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in

the

...

...

past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members,

have

...

...

left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on

their

...

part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior

yourself,

...

...

and

...

you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to

call

...

...

out

...

bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I

and

...

my

...

co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff

to

...

be

...

on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue

crucial

...

...

to

...

listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF

responses

...

to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement

on

...

...

...

Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose

questions

...

...

may

...

have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly,

to

...

...

...

prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list

--

...

...

and,

...

I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or

not

...

...

to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence

that

...

has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my

volunteer

...

capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list).

While I

...

...

...

have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on

occasion

...

...

been

...

scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to

the

...

...

best

...

of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer

try

...

to

...

respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a

perfectly

...

...

...

reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by

me

...

to

...

...

ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk

pages)

...

have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this

list's

...

...

...

subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to

really

...

...

...

thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those

who

...

do

...

...

so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up

and

...

my

...

...

...

fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment

this

...

...

...

list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is

within

...

...

...

WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at

WMF

...

...

...

could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to

respond

...

to

...

...

questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are

awaiting

...

their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this

list

...

...

as

...

a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience

and

...

...

...

diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would

like

...

to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my

words,

...

...

then

...

perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

...

...

...

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---

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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---

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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--

*James Hare* (he/him) Associate Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ 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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________ 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.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 3:06 PM Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:

The Wikimedia Resource Center (which currently is broken it seems) had the goal of trying to aid a community member in getting the right information, the right person or the right process to fulfill their needs. It's focus was on programmes but it was a good idea. I'm not saying this exact form would be suitable, given there is clearly a maintenance burden, but the concept has merits.

Now fixed. (There was a mis-located translation which had confused the software.) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Resource_Center :-)

Asaf, I have wondered at times whether you were ever scolded for some of the things you wrote on this list. I, for one, have always appreciated your comments and so I thank you for taking the time to craft your responses despite any WMF objections. I also would like to thank you for any moderation work you have done that I may not have seen. Jane

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:

Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because

this

...

list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get acknowledged or answered.

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe. It's true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on their part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself, and you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call out bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and my co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to be on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial to listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF responses to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions may have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list -- and, I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence that has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my volunteer capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list). While I have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion been scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the best of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try to respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by me to ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk pages) have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively

...

participating here then those long standing individuals need to really thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to

languish

...

and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this list faces.

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is within WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are awaiting their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list as a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would like to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my words, then perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.

---

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

Lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an abiding commitment to self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth? Isn't that what every maturing community with more than a handful of participants grows up to be? :P

The strategy process is certainly not except from these flaws. Why would it be? They are endemic across the movement throughout it's history and seen at all levels today. But the strategy process is, like many other processes, attempting to operate in a good faith manner and it is definitely trying to take the movement in a better direction that it has travelled so far (from an organisational standpoint). It consists of smart people, working together in a good faith manner to effect positive change within the movement.

For people like yourself who are dubious about the processes merits I think you should still engage. Ensuring that it has the right focuses doesn't necessitate prolonged engagement with the process. You don't need to go through the slog of coming up with solutions necessarily, just make sure someone will.

Regards Seddon

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:35 AM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

I think questioning the strategy for sustaining the movement's projects is worthwhile, particularly as part of the strategy discussion. I'm not sure if sniping on this list is as fruitful.

I considered Fae's question as well; not just the mechanical "do we need an archive site" that seemed implicit, but the fundamental question of whether new action needs to be taken to ensure the Wikimedia projects can be preserved. I hadn't considered that the strategy process would abrogate the core promise of these projects, that worthwhile content would be largely preserved to make that worth perpetually available to others.

If that's truly in question I find it hard to imagine what else the strategy discussion could find as a substitute. I haven't engaged in the strategy discussion for lots of reasons, but one is that I long ago acquired a deep skepticism of movement bureaucracy, whether within the projects or without. The entire edifice seems to have adopted the worst attributes of bureaucracy - lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an abiding commitment to self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth.

All that rescues the movement is the persistent desire of its contributors to add, improve and conserve and the simple demand that the bureaucracy - if it does nothing else - keep the lights on and stay out of the way. If that changes, then perhaps we will need the Internet Archive to step in after all.

PS: Thanks, Seddon, for your thoughtful reconsideration of your earlier post. To muddle the words of Michelle Obama, always go high. You can't go wrong.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:49 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:

...

Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.

Fae

...

is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how) the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.

The movement strategy process is very broad, and contains a lot of

diverse

...

ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be improved, maintained, developed and supported. I'm pretty deep in the strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to

the

...

point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation

will

...

make and keep useful information from its projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be

one

...

of the more important ones. I hope I am not presuming too much, but I think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of

the

...

mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it

or

...

who pays for it.

Risker/Anne

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

...

The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.

Additionally,

...

the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to

its

...

projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites

and

...

media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as

short-term

...

...

tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to

occupy

...

a

...

different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress

needs

...

to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre. _______________________________________________ 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 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 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

Agree that a further collaboration with internet archives on this could be an excellent solution as I imagine they already do much of it.

On Tue, May 14, 2019, 21:13 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:

Dearests.

The archival question is a good one. The wikiverse could use a more archival gloss, and currently regularly breaks links where a slight commitment to longer term reliably would preserve them intact. Nathan: long term preservation is not yet part of the projects' raison d'etre. Perhaps it should be.

For instance sep11.wikipedia.org doesn't redirect where it should. We may not even still have an archival dump online. Deleted articles and their revs are no longer targetable by links, not even with redaction (like an oversighted rev in a rev list), making for ephemeralinks.

A better phrasing might be: how are archives made and maintained, where are full copies of each project, is there any overview of how this is working? & How can interested parties add to the mirror count of a project?

IA and IPFS each mirror some things. I don't know of any full-wikimedia mirror that includes all projects and files, and while there may be an internal mirror including all private userdata, I don't believe there is one offsite -- a delicate kind of mirroring that calls for some thought.

SJ

On Tue., May 14, 2019, 6:03 p.m. Nathan, nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

...

The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.

Additionally,

...

the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to

its

...

projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites

and

...

media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy

a

...

different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress

needs

...

to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre. _______________________________________________ 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 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