Hi all,
This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up, specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community member with his own voice.
I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters, ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.
Thanks,
Lila
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
Fae
On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.
So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
-- Marc
Just a personal testimonial also to emphasize Marc's point and not necessarily when I did a work for WMF as a contractor, my previous girlfriend got interesting in Wikimedia projects after she saw somethings I worked on my spare time as a volunteer. She even began to write at Wikimedia Brasil mailing list and outreach Wikimedia projects. ;)
In fact, she still does sometimes some outreach and have even participate of a Wikimedia meeting recently. (Well, better not say her opinion on Wikidramas, totally aligned with mine : )
Tom
2014-05-28 11:04 GMT-03:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.
So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
-- Marc
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.org
My wife, thanks to Viisual Editor, now creates pages!
On 28 May 2014 16:21, Everton Zanella Alvarenga everton.alvarenga@okfn.orgwrote:
Just a personal testimonial also to emphasize Marc's point and not necessarily when I did a work for WMF as a contractor, my previous girlfriend got interesting in Wikimedia projects after she saw somethings I worked on my spare time as a volunteer. She even began to write at Wikimedia Brasil mailing list and outreach Wikimedia projects. ;)
In fact, she still does sometimes some outreach and have even participate of a Wikimedia meeting recently. (Well, better not say her opinion on Wikidramas, totally aligned with mine : )
Tom
2014-05-28 11:04 GMT-03:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.
So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
-- Marc
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote: ...
So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed. -- Marc
There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for employing.
I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can recall, did not.
Fae
My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders distributed to 3 schools:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_...
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-a...
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote: ...
So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed. -- Marc
There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for employing.
I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can recall, did not.
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Victor,
That's great. I can't see any complaints about WMF employees in the links you provided.
I am sure that we could find 100 examples of the partners of Wikimedians doing something on Wikimedia projects, it would be a great topic for "reasons why I love Wikimedia"... That is not the issue here, in fact I encouraged Wil to get experience contributing to the projects *before* using highly public platforms to complain about Wikimedia and Lila's new employees.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 May 2014 16:49, Victor Grigas vgrigas@wikimedia.org wrote:
My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders distributed to 3 schools:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_...
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-a...
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote: ...
So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed. -- Marc
There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for employing.
I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can recall, did not.
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
*Victor Grigas* Storyteller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0 Wikimedia Foundation vgrigas@wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Victor:
I continue to admire your persistence, and now it seems that of your partner, to fully engage in the process of bringing your considerable talent and seemingly boundless energy to making it possible for "very single human being to freely share in the sum of all knowledge."
It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from author James Baldwin: "Those who say it can' be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.
Keep on keepin' on!
Amy
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Victor Grigas vgrigas@wikimedia.org wrote:
My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders distributed to 3 schools:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_...
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-a...
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote: ...
So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed. -- Marc
There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for employing.
I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can recall, did not.
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
*Victor Grigas* Storyteller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0 Wikimedia Foundation vgrigas@wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific tasks, or otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These functions properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for community members to keep this in mind generally, but especially important for Wil because otherwise his connection to Lila might create concern or confusion for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, which I believe was already mentioned). If those guidelines are respected, there should be no problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special authority.
--Michael Snow
On 28 May 2014 16:55, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
...
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
...
I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific tasks, or otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These functions properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for community members to keep this in mind generally, but especially important for Wil because otherwise his connection to Lila might create concern or confusion for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, which I believe was already mentioned). If those guidelines are respected, there should be no problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special authority.
Thanks, that is a nice interpretation, it would be useful to have a confirmation that this was the intention of Lila's email.
It will be interesting to see whether in practice Wil has special authority, or not. It is quite hard to judge right now, having made so few contributions to Wikimedia projects, and as in the majority of discussions in various places (including Wil's English Wikipedia user page) his preferred form of first introduction is as "Lila Tretikov's significant other", which colours everyone's perception of how he should be treated.
Thanks, Fae
Thanks Michael for spelling this out further. Your understanding is correct.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.comwrote:
On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific tasks, or otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These functions properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for community members to keep this in mind generally, but especially important for Wil because otherwise his connection to Lila might create concern or confusion for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, which I believe was already mentioned). If those guidelines are respected, there should be no problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special authority.
--Michael Snow
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
If those guidelines are respected, there should be no problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special authority.
Yes - agreed. Let's judge Lila by her actions and Wil by his. To the extent that her association with a quirky, curious, hyperactive guy who enjoys poking things says anything about her, it's that she'll fit right in :)
Erik
Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees going forward: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, logged forums from now on.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
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 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 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
If you're talking about the message left on Oliver's talk page, it was a threat by a banned user which included reference to a dream about him where "knees were nailed to the floor from the back" and other such lovely details. That's precisely what moderation features on any site are for, and to the extent that it included implications of violence, yes, bringing safety concerns to the attention of senior staff at WMF is appropriate.
Cheers,
Erik
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
If you're talking about the message left on Oliver's talk page, it was a threat by a banned user which included reference to a dream about him where "knees were nailed to the floor from the back" and other such lovely details. That's precisely what moderation features on any site are for, and to the extent that it included implications of violence, yes, bringing safety concerns to the attention of senior staff at WMF is appropriate.
Cheers,
Erik
Again, this is not my concern. It is my prerogative whether to talk to WMF employees privately, however, and I choose not to. My apologies that we won't be able to carry on with our own private conversation, Erik.
,Wil
A slight correction: the revision was rev-deleted by a member of the community - a member of ArbCom, in fact - and not an employee of the Foundation.
Snt frm m Phn
On May 28, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees going forward: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, logged forums from now on.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ... independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes, that was mentioned on the Wikipediocracy thread, as well. I apologize to that person and the WMF for my misunderstanding.
Other than establishing the fact that I wrongly stated that this person is a WMF employee, the revdelete doesn't seem to warrant more investigation according to existing policy. As I mentioned before, I assume this revdelete was justified by published policy, so it doesn't matter who made it beyond correcting my mistake. I would like to protect that person's ability to act in good faith going forward.
The IRC conversation could warrant more discussion based on whether there is interest. I've said all I wanted to say on the matter (that I will not be engaging in private conversations with WMF employees for the time being), but I'd be happy to answer any questions that others might have.
Again, I'm sorry for my mistake, and thanks for pointing it out. ,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
A slight correction: the revision was rev-deleted by a member of the community - a member of ArbCom, in fact - and not an employee of the Foundation.
Snt frm m Phn
On May 28, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees going forward: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, logged forums from now on.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ... independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible. There are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This is information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of others.
Risker
On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees going forward: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, logged forums from now on.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
WMF
employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible. There are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This is information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of others.
Risker
On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees going forward: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, logged forums from now on.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
WMF
employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On May 28, 2014 7:09 PM, "Wil Sinclair" wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed).
I think you may have misunderstood. Public logging is not allowed, but it's fine to keep logs for yourself.
I wouldn't mind public logging myself, by the way.
Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
Your observation is correct. It is possible to delete revisions from history. This will be logged. I'm a little surprised you seem surprised by this. Am I misunderstanding what you mean?
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.
There
are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
is
information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words
of
others.
Risker
On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees going forward: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, logged forums from now on.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with
the
WMF
employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between
yourself
and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by
the
Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely
making
public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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
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
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 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
Hi Wil,
This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus on learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before jumping into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their channels. Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels prohibit people from publishing logs.
It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or suppressed altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good and necessary.
In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have made it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the concerns that posters have described.
~Nathan
Nathan, I was responding to Lila's note to clarify that I had made the decision to not discuss anything privately with any WMF employee. The IRC discussion was referenced by Fae, so I sent a link to the discussion so everyone could see what he was talking about; I will absolutely stand by my words. I think it's very important for everyone to understand that the WMF is not trying to directly control my communication with the community and with WMF employees. These are all my decisions.
Everyone who is encouraging me to stop posting on this thread seem to be the people who were asking for the clarification of my role in the first place. These people seemed to think this matter was urgent and that we shouldn't wait any longer- much less for me to understand the intricacies of those IRC channels- to get clarification. I was not the person to bring up the IRC discussion, but once it was brought up, I don't think many people would disagree that it was appropriate for me to respond with my account.
We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss. After all, you could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox, if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly. Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are saying about this list? Are they right?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
Hi Wil,
This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus on learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before jumping into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their channels. Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels prohibit people from publishing logs.
It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or suppressed altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good and necessary.
In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have made it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the concerns that posters have described.
~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Nathan, I was responding to Lila's note to clarify that I had made the decision to not discuss anything privately with any WMF employee. The IRC discussion was referenced by Fae, so I sent a link to the discussion so everyone could see what he was talking about; I will absolutely stand by my words. I think it's very important for everyone to understand that the WMF is not trying to directly control my communication with the community and with WMF employees. These are all my decisions.
Everyone who is encouraging me to stop posting on this thread seem to be the people who were asking for the clarification of my role in the first place. These people seemed to think this matter was urgent and that we shouldn't wait any longer- much less for me to understand the intricacies of those IRC channels- to get clarification. I was not the person to bring up the IRC discussion, but once it was brought up, I don't think many people would disagree that it was appropriate for me to respond with my account.
We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss. After all, you could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox, if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly. Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are saying about this list? Are they right?
,Wil
I'm way post having posted too much on this subject, so one last brief message and that will be it for me. Wil, I don't think anyone has objected to criticism of Wikimedia or enwp policies on this list (other than over forum selection for certain issues). People *have* objected to your decision to associate with WO, and have attempted to describe to you why they object.
Others (including me) have pointed out that your inexperience hampers your power as a critic of internal processes. There are just a long list of things you don't know much about, but that doesn't seem to prevent you from complaining about them in high visibility forums like this list. My advice is to take time away from lists and forums and controversial discussions and just learn and experience the projects. Then come back and join the more meta discussions.
I suspect you won't choose to follow that advice, since its been given multiple other times and you haven't yet, but I hope you understand the distinction between suggesting that you listen and learn before you opine and demanding that you piss off and stop posting full stop. I'm doing the former, no one has done the latter.
We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.
Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?
--Martijn
After all, you could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox, if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly. Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are saying about this list? Are they right?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
Hi Wil,
This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus
on
learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
jumping
into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their
channels.
Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels prohibit people from publishing logs.
It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or
suppressed
altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good
and
necessary.
In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have
made
it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the concerns that posters have described.
~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread, and many people were asking me to "wait." I find this interesting, because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to "wait," with the significant exception that this was to "wait until I so something, then come back." In this case, it was "wait until you've read these articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back." I agreed. They then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read, we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531
But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.
Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?
--Martijn
After all, you could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox, if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly. Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are saying about this list? Are they right?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
Hi Wil,
This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus
on
learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
jumping
into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their
channels.
Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels prohibit people from publishing logs.
It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or
suppressed
altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good
and
necessary.
In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have
made
it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the concerns that posters have described.
~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil, I have been following the conversation and I can feel your good-hearted nature. Please do not be offended when they say "wait" to you. They mean no harm to you, just the opposite.
I know how frustrating it is to have to wait, because all of us have gone through the same... Just to give you an example of my experience, it took me almost a year until I felt comfortable editing in my home project. Understanding the subjective experience of editing is something you will not find in any book, you have to go through it and then some opinions will make more sense to you. It took me many more years until I ventured to bring up topics that affect bigger communities. And now after ten years I am still learning... just figure.
Patience is a very positive trait and we never have enough of it. They have been giving it to you because they appreciate you, and if you give it back to them they will appreciate you even more.
Welcome to the community and an internet hug for you!
Micru
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread, and many people were asking me to "wait." I find this interesting, because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to "wait," with the significant exception that this was to "wait until I so something, then come back." In this case, it was "wait until you've read these articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back." I agreed. They then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read, we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531
But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.
Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?
--Martijn
After all, you could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox, if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly. Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are saying about this list? Are they right?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted
the
following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow
misrepresented
things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to
wikimedia-l
or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds,
but
I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
Hi Wil,
This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and
focus
on
learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
jumping
into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop
the
understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is
logging a
channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their
channels.
Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels prohibit people from publishing logs.
It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or
suppressed
altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you
considered it
with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good
and
necessary.
In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have
made
it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand
the
concerns that posters have described.
~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Will, we generally can find critics mainly from those who cannot understand or do not have patience when newbies make mistakes. Obviously I also have this problem sometimes (for this some ironic comments when I suggested in a recent topic suggesting we should criticize more kindlyhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071742.html), for this I believe it'll take sometime for we, as a group or even Wikimedia Foundation as an organization, to realise the importance of making mistakes http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/howmista.htm and give more importance on our learnings.
My general feeling is that we lack the necessary patience and the limitation of online communication tends to raise unnecessary issues (sometimes called wikidramas), but I have no idea how this cultural change can be achieved in the Wikimedia community. Maybe it will come with nonviolent communication < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication%3E or when we learn to ignore the violence and deal with it with wisdom.
Leadership in this (crazy, in the good sense :) horizontal community can also be a factor to improve the discussions environment, be it on mailing lists, forums or the wiki. The TeaHouse is a great example. The ideia of Wikipedia ambassadors to work on educational environments, although not sustainable in the mid term, is another cool idea. Those great videos made by Victor idem. More ideias will come, I believe. :)
Tom
2014-05-28 17:18 GMT-03:00 Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com:
Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread, and many people were asking me to "wait." I find this interesting, because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to "wait," with the significant exception that this was to "wait until I so something, then come back." In this case, it was "wait until you've read these articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back." I agreed. They then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read, we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531
But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.
,Wil
Wil,
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
As you can see there is a lot of consternation being directed your way, and at some stage, and this will teach you well for the future as well, you have to learn to walk away from the keyboard. If you can't do this, and I have a feeling you might have difficulty doing so, try to at least delay hitting the send button, but this is something else you may have trouble doing. This is especially important on this list, as there is a sending limit per month that people are able send, and this is obviously done to prevent the drowning out of other participants by any single person....you would likely be well on your way to this limit by now.
Wil, if you truly wanted to see how the projects work, usually the best way is to get involved at the ground level. Some people may want to make some edits on Wikipedia to an article on a subject that interest them. Others might add some information on one of their favourite holiday spots on Wikivoyage. Others might prefer to take a photo of their penis and upload it to Commons. There are literally plenty of ways for a n00b get involved on our projects.
You have missed an opportunity here to be able to help Lila with her new job.
Firstly, this is Lila's moment to shine and an opportunity for the community to get to know her and vice versa. It's a bit difficult for a sense of trust to be built when you have an overbearing partner essentially publicly pushing her aside and taking all of our attention. For example, I really don't know much about Lila, but I know more about you. And that presents a massive problem, and believe you me, others are thinking it, I'm willing to say it publicly.
Secondly, as a n00b, you would have been a great person for Lila to use as a sounding board as to how it is for new editors on our projects to be able to edit and understand how to navigate our projects. You may not be aware but our projects have a dire editor retention rate, and your experiences, given that it is evident you are green to our projects, may have been able to help Lila understand that particular issue.
Getting involved as you have done has only gone to serve Wikipediocracy by handing them the best PSA they could hope for on a silver platter.
Having said that, if you want to get involved on Commons, #wikimedia-commons is full of helpful editors who might be able to give you some further ideas on how to contribute to that project.
Learn the ropes first; there's plenty of time for wikipolitics and the like later on.
Cheers
Russavia
I cannot believe I am saying this; but I totally agree with Russavia.
Wil; why not have a go contributing to some WP articles and seeing what your experience is.
We have a comment statement that gets made on flame threads, which boils down to "isn't there an article you could be writing?"
Tom
On 28 May 2014 21:44, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Wil,
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
As you can see there is a lot of consternation being directed your way, and at some stage, and this will teach you well for the future as well, you have to learn to walk away from the keyboard. If you can't do this, and I have a feeling you might have difficulty doing so, try to at least delay hitting the send button, but this is something else you may have trouble doing. This is especially important on this list, as there is a sending limit per month that people are able send, and this is obviously done to prevent the drowning out of other participants by any single person....you would likely be well on your way to this limit by now.
Wil, if you truly wanted to see how the projects work, usually the best way is to get involved at the ground level. Some people may want to make some edits on Wikipedia to an article on a subject that interest them. Others might add some information on one of their favourite holiday spots on Wikivoyage. Others might prefer to take a photo of their penis and upload it to Commons. There are literally plenty of ways for a n00b get involved on our projects.
You have missed an opportunity here to be able to help Lila with her new job.
Firstly, this is Lila's moment to shine and an opportunity for the community to get to know her and vice versa. It's a bit difficult for a sense of trust to be built when you have an overbearing partner essentially publicly pushing her aside and taking all of our attention. For example, I really don't know much about Lila, but I know more about you. And that presents a massive problem, and believe you me, others are thinking it, I'm willing to say it publicly.
Secondly, as a n00b, you would have been a great person for Lila to use as a sounding board as to how it is for new editors on our projects to be able to edit and understand how to navigate our projects. You may not be aware but our projects have a dire editor retention rate, and your experiences, given that it is evident you are green to our projects, may have been able to help Lila understand that particular issue.
Getting involved as you have done has only gone to serve Wikipediocracy by handing them the best PSA they could hope for on a silver platter.
Having said that, if you want to get involved on Commons, #wikimedia-commons is full of helpful editors who might be able to give you some further ideas on how to contribute to that project.
Learn the ropes first; there's plenty of time for wikipolitics and the like later on.
Cheers
Russavia
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil, if you want to use email lists for your discussions, you may find a better reception if you use one of the project- or task-specific lists. There is a page on English Wikipedia with links to mailing lists that most closely relate to that project[1] and a more extensive list at Meta that describes lists for many other projects and specific areas of interest.[2] One is more likely to get a positive response when the audience is more accurately targeted.
You will probably find that a lot of practical questions you have asked could easily be answered at the English Wikipedia Teahouse page, where you have been invited. That would include questions about how to tell if something has been deleted from a page, how to read page histories, or even how to tell whether or not someone is WMF staff.
Risker
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview
On 28 May 2014 13:07, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible. There are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
is
information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of others.
Risker
On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees going forward: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, logged forums from now on.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with
the
WMF
employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If people don't want me to discuss this here, of course we can take it elsewhere.
I only reply to this publicly to suggest that you and others help me out with that. For example, you have plenty of options beyond replying list-wide to communicate the very thing you're telling me below. As long as none of these concerns boil down to "Just shut up, Wil," I'm all for optimizing communication. I think it's interesting, however, that no one seems to think that messages containing +1's to other people saying thanks aren't a waste of bandwidth or not entirely appropriate for this list.
Thanks for the suggestion, in any case. ,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, if you want to use email lists for your discussions, you may find a better reception if you use one of the project- or task-specific lists. There is a page on English Wikipedia with links to mailing lists that most closely relate to that project[1] and a more extensive list at Meta that describes lists for many other projects and specific areas of interest.[2] One is more likely to get a positive response when the audience is more accurately targeted.
You will probably find that a lot of practical questions you have asked could easily be answered at the English Wikipedia Teahouse page, where you have been invited. That would include questions about how to tell if something has been deleted from a page, how to read page histories, or even how to tell whether or not someone is WMF staff.
Risker
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview
On 28 May 2014 13:07, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
" I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. "
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible. There are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
is
information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of others.
Risker
On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees going forward: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when I tried clicking on the link.
In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, logged forums from now on.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with
the
WMF
employees.
Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the Foundation board.
I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations (emails?) with some WMF employees.
Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start to your engagement.
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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too.
Indeed you can. If you navigate to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log and enter the title of the page in the "Target (title or user)" field, you can see "GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision".
I was the one who deleted the revision in question. I'd like to clarify that I'm not an employee of the WMF. I'm an administrator, and a member of the Arbitration Committee, but my membership on that committee is by community election. It is neither paid by nor decided by the WMF. The deletion of that revision was done in my administrator, not arbitrator, capacity.
As for determining who is and is not an employee of the WMF, WMF employees editing as employees (and not community members) tend to have "(WMF)" in their usernames. If nothing else, you can check their userpages, where they will mention if they are employees.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed).
As some have already pointed out, it is in fact just fine to log Wikimedia channels. It is the publishing of these logs (from channels that restrict logging) that is considered to be a bannable offense.
"
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
In fact, I'd suggest you *do* begin logging your IRC communications. Had you been logging, you would have been able to refer to your logs to review my explanation of why the user in question is typically immediately banned from Wikimedia-related IRC channels. You also would have been able to refer to the conversation in which I pointed you to the revision deletion policy, and the specific criterion under which I removed the revision. You would also have remembered that you did not ask me for any more detail about the relationship between Wikimedia-related IRC channels and Wikimedia projects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to _Wikipedia.3F), about the IRC channel guidelines (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines, also linked from the channel topic in #wikipedia-en) or expectations of channel operators (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Channel_operator_guidelines), or about the revision itself and its contents.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Thanks for all the pointers, Molly, and for disclosing that it was you for the sake of adding a bit more info to the discussion; you haven't done anything wrong as far as I know, and I didn't feel comfortable mentioning your IRC nick in case there were any confusion. I simply didn't get a chance to look at that diff before you revdeleted it; it was the only concrete evidence that I saw linked there for why badmachine was kicked. I probably should have clicked on it immediately. My bad.
I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.
To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with "safety concerns." That was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to everyone's benefit IMO.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too.
Indeed you can. If you navigate to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log and enter the title of the page in the "Target (title or user)" field, you can see "GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision".
I was the one who deleted the revision in question. I'd like to clarify that I'm not an employee of the WMF. I'm an administrator, and a member of the Arbitration Committee, but my membership on that committee is by community election. It is neither paid by nor decided by the WMF. The deletion of that revision was done in my administrator, not arbitrator, capacity.
As for determining who is and is not an employee of the WMF, WMF employees editing as employees (and not community members) tend to have "(WMF)" in their usernames. If nothing else, you can check their userpages, where they will mention if they are employees.
Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed).
As some have already pointed out, it is in fact just fine to log Wikimedia channels. It is the publishing of these logs (from channels that restrict logging) that is considered to be a bannable offense.
"
There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p9...
,Wil
In fact, I'd suggest you *do* begin logging your IRC communications. Had you been logging, you would have been able to refer to your logs to review my explanation of why the user in question is typically immediately banned from Wikimedia-related IRC channels. You also would have been able to refer to the conversation in which I pointed you to the revision deletion policy, and the specific criterion under which I removed the revision. You would also have remembered that you did not ask me for any more detail about the relationship between Wikimedia-related IRC channels and Wikimedia projects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to _Wikipedia.3F), about the IRC channel guidelines (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines, also linked from the channel topic in #wikipedia-en) or expectations of channel operators (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Channel_operator_guidelines), or about the revision itself and its contents.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.
No need to apologize. I'm really not horrified at being mistaken for a staffer, I'm just trying to clear up any confusion.
To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with "safety concerns." That was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to everyone's benefit IMO.
Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not, how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not, how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Of course. While I was talking to you and others on IRC, Lila came over and asked me to stop. She usually doesn't do that under any circumstances, because she respects my right to say what I want where I want. She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety concerns, and safety of my employees is a matter that I can't compromise on." She didn't say who wrote her or what their specific concerns were, but I'm not about to cause anyone concern over their safety personally + Lila felt she was responsible for the employee's well being in this case. I did find it somewhat annoying, since it certainly wasn't anything that I said there that would cause safety concerns and no one msg'd me about it directly. I just asked why badmachine was kicked and about the rather mean manner under which he was kicked. But I told you guys why I was leaving and left. FWIW, I don't plan on coming back anytime soon.
This was the first time that Lila told me anything about internal matters, and it was limited to exactly what I wrote above. Frankly, I don't want to know about WMF's affairs, and I'm taking action to avoid knowing anything more for the foreseeable future.
,Wil
All:
I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed on IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety concerns,
It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately, about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease it.
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think we need to protect this list from further flooding.
I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this happen?
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm actually being very open about something to justify it. This is extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
l:
I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed on IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety concerns,
It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately, about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease it.
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think we need to protect this list from further flooding.
I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this happen?
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in to say something sooner. I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre as that sounds. Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be much better if you had a map before continuing. ---- Kevin Gorman
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm actually being very open about something to justify it. This is extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
l:
I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
on
IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety concerns,
It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately, about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
it.
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
think
we need to protect this list from further flooding.
I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this happen?
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If this list chooses to block me for any amount of time, it might as well be forever. I'm responding to other people's mails here; I'd prefer to mail less as well.
In any case, you'll be blocking someone for asking relevant questions and replying to relevant concerns. I think that is pretty self-evident. If I do get blocked on this list, I will be taking my discussion to Wikipediocracy where I have never been so much as encouraged to be quiet beyond the matter I mentioned before, and anyone who is interested in it is welcome to join me there.
This is getting *really* scary. Think about what you do in full sight of the entire community before you act, please.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in to say something sooner. I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre as that sounds. Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be much better if you had a map before continuing.
Kevin Gorman
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm actually being very open about something to justify it. This is extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
l:
I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
on
IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety concerns,
It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately, about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
it.
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
think
we need to protect this list from further flooding.
I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this happen?
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Ive been watching this conversation and I have to agree with Will here. These calls for banning/restriction of access to the list and admission that Wikipedia is full of "landmines" is troubling. If we have such grave problems, we should be confronting them. If Will is just stirring the pot, ignore him and it will go away.
From: wllm@wllm.com Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:10:49 -0700 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.
If this list chooses to block me for any amount of time, it might as well be forever. I'm responding to other people's mails here; I'd prefer to mail less as well.
In any case, you'll be blocking someone for asking relevant questions and replying to relevant concerns. I think that is pretty self-evident. If I do get blocked on this list, I will be taking my discussion to Wikipediocracy where I have never been so much as encouraged to be quiet beyond the matter I mentioned before, and anyone who is interested in it is welcome to join me there.
This is getting *really* scary. Think about what you do in full sight of the entire community before you act, please.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in to say something sooner. I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre as that sounds. Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be much better if you had a map before continuing.
Kevin Gorman
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm actually being very open about something to justify it. This is extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
l:
I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
on
IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety concerns,
It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately, about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
it.
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
think
we need to protect this list from further flooding.
I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this happen?
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think we need to protect this list from further flooding.
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per individual/month, as stated on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s) not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context, this is especially important, because it's a "push" medium that gets delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in some cases without filters.
By my count, Wil has posted to this list >50 times this month, which is a bit excessive.
Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the _topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at which you've been doing it.
Cheers,
Erik
Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words directly?
You guys are moving in a *very* sketchy direction here. These mails are archived; it will be quite clear what everyone said before I was blocked if you decide to go that route. You are talking about very obviously censoring a person who has been saying inconvenient things in a high-profile manner. Is this the kind of Free Speech Wikipedia supposedly stands for?
Seriously. I really want to know.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think we need to protect this list from further flooding.
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per individual/month, as stated on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s) not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context, this is especially important, because it's a "push" medium that gets delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in some cases without filters.
By my count, Wil has posted to this list >50 times this month, which is a bit excessive.
Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the _topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at which you've been doing it.
Cheers,
Erik
-- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It turns out that Lila is actually a perfect ED. Someone capable to handle and love a person like Wil is -- should be quite competent in handling the rest of the community :D On May 29, 2014 1:21 AM, "Wil Sinclair" wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words directly?
You guys are moving in a *very* sketchy direction here. These mails are archived; it will be quite clear what everyone said before I was blocked if you decide to go that route. You are talking about very obviously censoring a person who has been saying inconvenient things in a high-profile manner. Is this the kind of Free Speech Wikipedia supposedly stands for?
Seriously. I really want to know.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think we need to protect this list from further flooding.
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per individual/month, as stated on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s) not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context, this is especially important, because it's a "push" medium that gets delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in some cases without filters.
By my count, Wil has posted to this list >50 times this month, which is a bit excessive.
Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the _topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at which you've been doing it.
Cheers,
Erik
-- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words directly?
Hey Wil,
Pick your battles, help keep the conversation manageable, exercise restraint, take social cues, assume good faith, forgive and forget. The 30 posts/month guideline is in place to help with that -- forcing yourself to simply slow down (not shut up) is a good way to exercise the aforementioned habits, which are good habits for any large group conversation in my experience.
Warm regards,
Erik
Hello all,
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes. It is wonderful to hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one that I try to follow myself. It helps avoid misunderstandings.
Pete Forsyth writes:
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others, there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
Erik Moeller writes:
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per [month]
Wil Sinclair writes:
just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced perspective...
Sam
(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile. Thank you for mentioning it here. :-)
Thanks for the note, Sam. Your advice to me is very wise. I've said and seen about all that I want to, save one more post. You'll see it in the next few minutes.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes. It is wonderful to hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one that I try to follow myself. It helps avoid misunderstandings.
Pete Forsyth writes:
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others, there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
Erik Moeller writes:
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per [month]
Wil Sinclair writes:
just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced perspective...
Sam
(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile. Thank you for mentioning it here. :-)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or ostracized.
That's right: *afraid*
I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function? I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong lead at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes. It is wonderful to hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one that I try to follow myself. It helps avoid misunderstandings.
Pete Forsyth writes:
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others, there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
Erik Moeller writes:
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per [month]
Wil Sinclair writes:
just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced perspective...
Sam
(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile. Thank you for mentioning it here. :-)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or ostracized.
That's right: *afraid*
I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
It is an interesting question; you have framed it as a serious problem, which may be undeniably true from your perspective based on the private emails that you have received. But we can't see those emails, and you don't know the people who are sending you those emails, and their motivations. Please let *that* sink in.
As I have said in another post, *this list* is the primary communication venue for a 'movement' that runs one of the largest web properties in the world, and the people doing it are mostly volunteers whose time is very precious and motivations very diverse, and it is being done on a tiny budget so the paid staff time is just as precious.
That *should* have ramifications on the type of discourse that is appropriate on this list. 'free speech' isnt a valid argument. Your speech on this list effectively costs me money (time). And it consumes donor dollars. So what is appropriate use of this list? We do discuss that periodically, and organically.
I know I was *afraid* of posting to this list during my first year of being 'highly active' part of this movement. I remember being in awe of some of the insightful posts, and very disturbed by others, but usually someone else would pipe up and complain, so I just lurked and occasionally privately emailed people, learning as I went along. I dont see that as inherently a bad thing. This movement is huge; there is lots to learn. About the projects. About the people. About their disputes.
The change of ED is *very disruptive*, and so it should be.
Your arrival on this list is *very disruptive*. e.g. we dont often have people hit the posting limit in their first month of participating in this list.
Disruption can be very good. ;-) But consider this list officially disrupted for at least the next month or two, and probably best avoided IMO. Don't be surprised that volunteers don't want to get publicly involved in the highly disrupted environment that this list is currently, and instead privately email you a word of encouragement.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exopedianism
-- John Vandenberg
hi Wil,
reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before. Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps, AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors) skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are, in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or ostracized.
That's right: *afraid*
I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function? I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong lead at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes. It is wonderful to hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one that I try to follow myself. It helps avoid misunderstandings.
Pete Forsyth writes:
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others, there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
Erik Moeller writes:
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
[month]
Wil Sinclair writes:
just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced perspective...
Sam
(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile. Thank you for mentioning it here. :-)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Wil,
I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and well worth taking on board.
Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good. But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and that's getting people's backs up. The issues that you are raising, like child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.
I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and recrimination.
Cheers, Craig
On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
hi Wil,
reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before. Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps, AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors) skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are, in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or ostracized.
That's right: *afraid*
I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function? I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong lead at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes. It is wonderful to hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one that I try to follow myself. It helps avoid misunderstandings.
Pete Forsyth writes:
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
at
least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others, there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
Erik Moeller writes:
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
[month]
Wil Sinclair writes:
just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced perspective...
Sam
(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile. Thank you for mentioning it here. :-)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum whatsoever.
I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread), then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I *can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally. I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound library on Commons.
Best! ,Wil
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi Wil,
I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and well worth taking on board.
Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good. But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and that's getting people's backs up. The issues that you are raising, like child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.
I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and recrimination.
Cheers, Craig
On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
hi Wil,
reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before. Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps, AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors) skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are, in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or ostracized.
That's right: *afraid*
I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function? I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong lead at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes. It is wonderful to hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one that I try to follow myself. It helps avoid misunderstandings.
Pete Forsyth writes:
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
at
least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others, there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
Erik Moeller writes:
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
[month]
Wil Sinclair writes:
just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced perspective...
Sam
(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile. Thank you for mentioning it here. :-)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Well, the best way to meet people interested in working with you to build the sound library on Commons is ... on Commons. There's a Village Pump there, where you can freely post a message, and people will answer it if they are interested. There are projects running that revolve around sound or video.
You are welcome to participate to Commons, as you are on any projects of the community. But people won't come to you, you've got to make the first step. This is how we roll.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum whatsoever.
I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread), then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I *can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally. I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound library on Commons.
Best! ,Wil
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi Wil,
I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and well worth taking on board.
Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good. But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and that's getting people's backs up. The issues that you are raising, like child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.
I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and recrimination.
Cheers, Craig
On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
hi Wil,
reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write
that
I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome
that
you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find
it
slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem
before.
Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village
Pumps,
AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors) skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop
reading
critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People
are,
in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or ostracized.
That's right: *afraid*
I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function? I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong lead at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello all,
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes. It is wonderful to hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one that I try to follow myself. It helps avoid misunderstandings.
Pete Forsyth writes:
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be
blocked,
at
least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others, there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
Erik Moeller writes:
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts
per
[month]
Wil Sinclair writes:
just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try
to
make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced perspective...
Sam
(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile. Thank you for mentioning it here. :-)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil Sinclair wrote:
With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum whatsoever.
I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread), then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I *can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
If anyone's wondering what happened to Wil, lately he's been trolling a few Wikipedia-related IRC channels on freenode. Such productivity. :-/
MZMcBride
No, I'm right here. Standing up for what I believe in, just like I stand up for the principles I value everywhere, including IRC, on-wiki, and off-. It seems y'all know where to find my opinion. So, if you're interested, go look. If you're not, then feel free to just put me down here, as per the ush.
Thanks for bringing me up, MZMcBride; should get a lot more people to look at those IRC logs I was hoping to bring to everyone's attention.
Best! ,Wil
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:28 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Wil Sinclair wrote:
With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum whatsoever.
I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread), then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I *can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
If anyone's wondering what happened to Wil, lately he's been trolling a few Wikipedia-related IRC channels on freenode. Such productivity. :-/
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil Sinclair wrote:
Thanks for bringing me up, MZMcBride; should get a lot more people to look at those IRC logs I was hoping to bring to everyone's attention.
I'm looking forward to your posts about the current and upcoming Wikimedia Foundation strategic plans. That's why you came on IRC, right? Not to stoke drama and violate its social norms regarding public logging, but to have an open discussion about current goals and future goals? Your discussion seems to have started there and yet somehow you became entirely focused on trying to advance some warped version of "free speech" in a couple of IRC channels that you rarely visit. Re-skimming some of the 2014 threads that you precipitated, this seems like pretty classic Wil behavior.
MZMcBride
Please drop this thread / subject. Concentrate on issues not people.
Regards, Richard.
It is hard to tell what thread you refer to when the thread is gone. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ames Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:51 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.
Please drop this thread / subject. Concentrate on issues not people.
Regards, Richard. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date: 11/20/15
Wil,
Just for the record, "hands-off" is the best way to describe our approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for this list, that bar's set pretty high.
The "soft post limit" that's been pointed out to you exists as a guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which... yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the number of things you have to defend all at once.
Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way worse.
Austin
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or ostracized.
That's right: *afraid*
I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function? I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong lead at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes. It is wonderful to hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one that I try to follow myself. It helps avoid misunderstandings.
Pete Forsyth writes:
I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others, there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
Erik Moeller writes:
As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per [month]
Wil Sinclair writes:
just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced perspective...
Sam
(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile. Thank you for mentioning it here. :-)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Wil,
Just for the record, "hands-off" is the best way to describe our approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for this list, that bar's set pretty high.
The "soft post limit" that's been pointed out to you exists as a guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which... yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the number of things you have to defend all at once.
Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way worse.
Austin
I meant to say this a month or two ago, but... Welcome back, Austin!
For the record, I take any safety issues concerning both staff and volunteers extremely seriously. In the case of a threatening message left on an employee's talk page, GorillaWarfare took immediate action, for which I am very grateful. And I am grateful to see this kind of community at work.
Creating an open, safe and welcoming environment is extremely important to me, and that includes maintaining a friendly space by clearly excluding individuals who harass and threaten others and preventing their presence on our pages.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Molly White < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.
No need to apologize. I'm really not horrified at being mistaken for a staffer, I'm just trying to clear up any confusion.
To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with "safety concerns." That was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to everyone's benefit IMO.
Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not, how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear Lila,
I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the Wikimedia community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody with a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've never seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good, frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine what more effective path he could have chosen.
I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still getting to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder what others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate? And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=46...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up, specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community member with his own voice.
I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters, ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.
Thanks,
Lila _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lila,
I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the Wikimedia community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody with a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've never seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good, frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine what more effective path he could have chosen.
I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still getting to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder what others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate? And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=46...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up, specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community member with his own voice.
I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters, ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF employees.
I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.
Thanks,
Lila _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical role in the Wikimedia movement.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it. In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the quote itself?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical role in the Wikimedia movement.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it. In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the quote itself?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical role in the Wikimedia movement.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Greg, would you like to repeat your filth? He may need someone to post it in surrogate, since I believe he said he's banned here.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it. In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the quote itself?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical role in the Wikimedia movement.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I do agree that with all good faith being assumed, Wil's style of interaction is a bit new and the novelty is starting to wear off a bit. Wil is of course his own individual and beyond respecting the soft posting limits as part of this list's etiquette I do not think anyone is trying to stifle or silence him against his interests.
People commenting on this list have been offering him the courtesy for him to calm down with the constant posting for a bit of a breather, but he is of course free to continue. As a person who has been following WMF's actions and governance for a few years now, I think it might be best for the organisation, Wil and Lila if Will let this thread die a natural death now -- he's already started a few others that can take things forward in a more constructive manner and that do not need his involvement. I am sure he will be able to contribute to more debates once the posting limits reset, and he and everyone else had some time to think and recharge by doing something else in the meantime.
In any case, Wil seems like a very interesting person and I hope I get to meet him at Wikimania, still, I have to join the list of people who think it would be in his best interests if he posted less and with more political tact to this list considering that his actions and style reflect on his partner.
Best regards, Bence
P.S. I have used third person, impersonal pronouns so Wil is not compelled to feel a need to reply. It was not meant in disrespect as if he was not reading this.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l - at 30 posts/month as a "soft limit". Wil is around the limit right now - http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Wikimedia-l.html
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Greg, would you like to repeat your filth? He may need someone to post it in surrogate, since I believe he said he's banned here.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me
where?
I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it. In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the quote itself?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical role in the Wikimedia movement.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
́Fae,
You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.
Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the mudslinging off this list.
Austin
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it. In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the quote itself?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical role in the Wikimedia movement.
Fae
On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 29/05/2014, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
́Fae,
You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.
Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the mudslinging off this list.
Austin
Thanks Austin.
As Austin is a list moderator, I take this as an official public warning to me, from the list moderators, that my way of highlighting to Wil of the nature of who he was actively promoting on this list, was not acceptable behaviour by me on this list.
My email was not intended as an allegation nor mudslinging, but as an assertion of publicly documented fact. It should be noted that Andreas Kolbe provided links and extracts of the evidence on this list at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072154.html. Kohs' use of a word that demeans and derides all gay people was not acceptable on Wikipediocracy, the website that Kohs owns, and after some discussion there, was removed from public view under the site terms of use(*). I am certain that Andreas would be happy to address further questions by direct email to him as a Wikipediocracy moderator with access to the original material, rather than continuing to correspond about it on this public forum with only links available of partial representations of it.
* - Wikipediocracy's terms include "You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Wikipediocracy” is hosted or International Law."
Wil remains free to post exactly how he pleases on any forum, this is up to his discretion, I hope he continues to enjoy and respect the freedom to do so.
My apologies to readers of this list for any misunderstanding that my taking part might have caused. It was not my intention to abuse any free speech rights for anyone else, but to fairly exercise my own with regard to a serious incident of LGBT interest.
Thanks, Fae
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
That post was removed from view at the time (May 2012).
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3707#p3707
What Greg had said on WO was,
---o0o---
It looks like *Fae got* upset with my post to his Talkhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=next&oldid=70008600 page.
---o0o---
The diff Greg linked to was this one:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=n...
Greg apologised to Fæ for the post here:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4888#p4888
I would like to apologize to Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for my recent word-play quip, "Fae got upset". I had hoped that the poke would be received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to apply for him.
Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But what I did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what it wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to try to force a change in the community.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lila,
I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
Wikimedia
community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
with
a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
never
seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good, frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine what more effective path he could have chosen.
I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
getting
to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
what
others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate? And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
introduced
to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware
that
he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=46...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came
up,
specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always
both
been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That
said we
have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
community
member with his own voice.
I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction
with
input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these
matters,
ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
WMF
employees.
I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction
between
my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you
have
any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any
questions
for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.
Thanks,
Lila _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own client, if you don't mind my posting it.
I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I don't interact with WMF employees in private.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:
Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But what I did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what it wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to try to force a change in the community.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lila,
I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
Wikimedia
community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
with
a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
never
seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good, frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine what more effective path he could have chosen.
I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
getting
to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
what
others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate? And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
introduced
to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware
that
he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=46...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came
up,
specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always
both
been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That
said we
have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
community
member with his own voice.
I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction
with
input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these
matters,
ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
WMF
employees.
I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction
between
my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you
have
any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any
questions
for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.
Thanks,
Lila _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If you meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really be kosher according to our current practices.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own client, if you don't mind my posting it.
I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I don't interact with WMF employees in private.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:
Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
what I
did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what
it
wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to try to force a change in the community.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lila,
I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
Wikimedia
community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
tactics
you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
with
a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to
establish
yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
never
seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good, frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't
imagine
what more effective path he could have chosen.
I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
getting
to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
what
others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is
accurate?
And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the
last
week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
introduced
to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well
aware
that
he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word,
and I
personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=46...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently
came
up,
specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have
always
both
been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That
said we
have different roles: I am the Executive Director with
responsibilities
towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
community
member with his own voice.
I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in
conjunction
with
input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these
matters,
ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with
the
community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with
the
WMF
employees.
I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction
between
my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If
you
have
any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any
questions
for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk
page.
Thanks,
Lila _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I didn't really mention anything specifically, except a leader who could "change the concerning aspects of the WP community." It has been WMF's stated goal to change things like the participation of women on WP for years. I suppose it would be most accurate to say that I meant the things that the WMF has been very publicly trying to change about the community and WP for years now. I believe these goals are shared by Lila, but we haven't really discussed them.
You know, that's strange. Everything you guys are adding to this thread could be used to discredit me in the eyes of various parts of the community. I really hope that isn't the case, but it wouldn't change my behavior if it were. I encourage everyone to read these threads and make up their minds for themselves. Keep in mind that some of the characterizations of what people have said haven't been substantiated yet. Maybe some more evidence will come to light on this thread.
Thanks. ,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:
I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If you meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really be kosher according to our current practices.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own client, if you don't mind my posting it.
I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I don't interact with WMF employees in private.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:
Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
what I
did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what
it
wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to try to force a change in the community.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lila,
I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
Wikimedia
community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
tactics
you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
with
a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to
establish
yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
never
seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good, frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't
imagine
what more effective path he could have chosen.
I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
getting
to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
what
others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is
accurate?
And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the
last
week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
introduced
to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well
aware
that
he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word,
and I
personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=46...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently
came
up,
specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have
always
both
been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That
said we
have different roles: I am the Executive Director with
responsibilities
towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
community
member with his own voice.
I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in
conjunction
with
input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these
matters,
ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with
the
community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an independent individual able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with
the
WMF
employees.
I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction
between
my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If
you
have
any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any
questions
for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk
page.
Thanks,
Lila _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil: nothing anyone is saying here is aimed at discrediting you, you've just jumped in to a field of landmines without a map, and we'd rather not have you blow your legs off. I'll have a private email incoming to you as fast as I can type it but given that the deputy director of the WMF and several respected Wikimedians have said things may be better if you back off a bit, it would probably good to extend us the trust necessary to give you a map of the field of landmines you've jumped in to.
--- Kevin Gorman
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
I didn't really mention anything specifically, except a leader who could "change the concerning aspects of the WP community." It has been WMF's stated goal to change things like the participation of women on WP for years. I suppose it would be most accurate to say that I meant the things that the WMF has been very publicly trying to change about the community and WP for years now. I believe these goals are shared by Lila, but we haven't really discussed them.
You know, that's strange. Everything you guys are adding to this thread could be used to discredit me in the eyes of various parts of the community. I really hope that isn't the case, but it wouldn't change my behavior if it were. I encourage everyone to read these threads and make up their minds for themselves. Keep in mind that some of the characterizations of what people have said haven't been substantiated yet. Maybe some more evidence will come to light on this thread.
Thanks. ,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:
I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If
you
meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really be kosher according to our current practices.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own client, if you don't mind my posting it.
I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I don't interact with WMF employees in private.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng <jasper@jasperswebsite.com
wrote:
Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
what I
did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do
what
it
wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff
to
try to force a change in the community.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point.
That
doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director); I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his call on what he puts on his own site.
Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know- but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong, charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again, that's all just my opinion.
I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about
me
so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it to the list this time. :)
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Lila,
I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
Wikimedia
community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
tactics
you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for
somebody
with
a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it
a
legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to
establish
yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the
lead?
I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary.
I've
never
seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are
good,
frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't
imagine
what more effective path he could have chosen.
I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
getting
to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I
wonder
what
others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is
accurate?
And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the
last
week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
introduced
to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even
if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well
aware
that
he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word,
and I
personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of
Lila
Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22,
2014
http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=46...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov <
lila@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Hi all, > > This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently
came
up,
> specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED. > > > My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have
always
both
> been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other.
That
said we
> have different roles: I am the Executive Director with
responsibilities
> towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
community
> member with his own voice. > > I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in
conjunction
with
> input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these
matters,
> ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements
with
the
> community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED. > > Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the > community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia > projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an > independent individual > able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He
does
not
> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage
with
the
WMF
> employees. > > I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction
between
> my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If
you
have
> any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any
questions
> for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk
page.
> > > Thanks, > > Lila > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 28 May 2014 22:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote: ...
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
Thanks for highlighting this Pete, I had no idea that Wil wrote this (unless someone is spoofing him).
Lila, you need to explain what game is being played here. Perhaps you intend to shock the established community? You succeeded.
Fae
I thought she did explain it. I act on my own behalf. I'm not introducing Lila to anyone for any purpose. Man, I am getting tired of writing that, and I can imagine that you're tired of reading it. We've both already answered this question.
Everything I said about Greg there is true in *my* opinion, and I think this is probably the most clear-cut attempt at guilt by association I've ever witnessed online. But whatever- I said, you spread it. Thanks for getting my perspective out there.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2014 22:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote: ...
Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced to the Wikimedia community and the world?
- *<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
Thanks for highlighting this Pete, I had no idea that Wil wrote this (unless someone is spoofing him).
Lila, you need to explain what game is being played here. Perhaps you intend to shock the established community? You succeeded.
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wil,
Have you been introduced to Jimmy Wales yet?
I'd be most interested for you to take your quote about Greg Kohs to Jimmy on his talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&action=...) and ask him if he would agree with you.
Also, please note that here on wikimedia-l you are reaching only a small audience, you will likely get a wider audience at Jimmy's talk page, and therefore a wider variety of opinion.
We'd then be most interested in hearing about your findings.
Cheers,
Russavia
Someone already mentioned me on his talk page, and I responded. Please do paste that quote there if you think he'd be interested in it. I know he and Greg have disagreed in the past; he may offer me a different perspective on the matter. I'm interested in everyone's perspective.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Wil,
Have you been introduced to Jimmy Wales yet?
I'd be most interested for you to take your quote about Greg Kohs to Jimmy on his talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&action=...) and ask him if he would agree with you.
Also, please note that here on wikimedia-l you are reaching only a small audience, you will likely get a wider audience at Jimmy's talk page, and therefore a wider variety of opinion.
We'd then be most interested in hearing about your findings.
Cheers,
Russavia
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org