Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm most interested in:
Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a specific thread for that.
Harassment- I'd like to hear about existing policies around harassment and potential changes to such policies. In particular, I'm interested in how the community might tackle this problem to make the site a more comfortable place for the oft-mentioned female constituent that has long been in decline.
Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary about of time that is more than the few months that others have mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active contributor.
Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
I'd also like to hear about specific examples of content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their children.
Wil and all,
Note that all the links I am posting below are NSFW.
1.
The other day I found that if a Portuguese or Russian child searches in Commons for the word "Mom" in their language, on the first page of search results they will find this NSFW image:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_m...
In the Portuguese case, it's actually the top result.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile...
There are many other images by the same artist in Commons that parents might find inappropriate:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs
2.
A while ago, the top result for the French word for "homework" was an old b&w video showing sex between an actress dressed as a nun and a dog. That particular video was eventually deleted, after enjoying a half-year stint as one of the most-viewed files on Commons, with 20,000 to 30,000 views per month:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Devoirs_de... http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/201203/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
However, all the other videos from the same series are still on Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_Polissons_et_galipet...
Most of them show various forms of unsimulated intercourse etc.
3.
Commons contains dozens of masturbation videos uploaded by volunteers, housed in
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_masturbation
Check the various subcategories like
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GIF_videos_of_male_masturbation https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ogv_videos_of_male_masturbation
and so forth.
There is much more of that ilk, but it's a start.
Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a specific thread for that.
You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't think that in any way works.
Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I am sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example, admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such as grooming.
Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the problem more.
But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size? Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty extensive given my former job).
Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins' activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never struck me as an issue under the umbrella of "xhild protection".
How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are prevelant and easy to set up.
I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and use content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!
So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue of objectionable images.
This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here. For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent, beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the prophet mohammed.
How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?
One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to see.
I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a Muslim might not.
Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary about of time that is more than the few months that others have mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active contributor.
I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)
Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental improvement each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?
More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap - what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained "sides"? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)
One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list is useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).
Regards, Tom
On 29 May 2014 07:13, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a specific thread for that.
You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't think that in any way works.
Indeed, and the "unexpected search results on Commons" matter has been discussed at length here and on the projects, and at length, and recently. I don't think there's any reluctance to discuss this, there is a general consensus that there's a problem, but different folks offer different solutions. On the other hand, coming out with ways to protect minors from predators on our projects, without throwing out the bathwater as well, would probably be an interesting discussion that I don't recall being raised here recently.
Cheers, Craig
Sorry, the n00b has to step in with a couple of clarifications. :) I was asking about 2 separate issues, so no conflation there.
Also I asked very carefully for *all* sides of the issues: "Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story."
All right, back on topic! :)
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a specific thread for that.
You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't think that in any way works.
Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I am sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example, admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such as grooming.
Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the problem more.
But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size? Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty extensive given my former job).
Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins' activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never struck me as an issue under the umbrella of "xhild protection".
How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are prevelant and easy to set up.
I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and use content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!
So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue of objectionable images.
This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here. For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent, beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the prophet mohammed.
How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?
One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to see.
I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a Muslim might not.
Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary about of time that is more than the few months that others have mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active contributor.
I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)
Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental improvement each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?
More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap - what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained "sides"? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)
One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list is useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).
Regards, Tom _______________________________________________ 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
Please raise and discuss questions about policy on meta. This is not the place.
Regards, Thyge
2014-05-28 23:54 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com:
Sorry, the n00b has to step in with a couple of clarifications. :) I was asking about 2 separate issues, so no conflation there.
Also I asked very carefully for *all* sides of the issues: "Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story."
All right, back on topic! :)
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a specific thread for that.
You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't think that in any way works.
Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I
am
sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example, admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such
as
grooming.
Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the problem more.
But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size? Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty extensive given my former job).
Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins' activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never
struck
me as an issue under the umbrella of "xhild protection".
How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are prevelant and easy to set up.
I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and
use
content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too!
So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue
of
objectionable images.
This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here. For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent, beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the prophet mohammed.
How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that?
One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to see.
I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a Muslim might not.
Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary about of time that is more than the few months that others have mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active contributor.
I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;)
Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental
improvement
each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them?
More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap - what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained "sides"? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :)
One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list
is
useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example).
Regards, Tom _______________________________________________ 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 May 29, 2014 5:33 AM, "Thyge" ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
Please raise and discuss questions about policy on meta. This is not the place.
Regards, Thyge
Wil, I suggest that you do go to http://meta.wikimedia.org and find pages about these issues. *Read the archives of the talk pages*. And start new discussions on those talk pages. Assume the 'meta' project has a discussion page for every issue you can think of. If you cant find something on meta, ask someone who is active on meta (check recent changes)
Also read the archives of wikimedia-l for at least 2013 and 2014, to get a feel for this list, and to be aware of where we are 'at' on issues which are discussed every year. Then you can start new threads which pick up from where we left of last time.
Keep in mind wikimedia-l is mandatory reading for a lot of very busy volunteers and NGO staff at all levels and who have varying levels of English proficiency. wikimedia-l doubles as an business forum for our many NGOs.
Every email to this list has an opportunity cost. It is peoples time being consumed.
-- John Vandenberg
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm most interested in:
Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the content on Commons.
There is content on Wikipedia and on Commons, and probably on other projects as well, that most probably doesn't find suitable for children. What makes the matter worse is that some searches that one doesn't expect to bring up sexually explicit content do in fact bring it up, i.e. the famous toothbrush image. There are a couple of separate questions.
* Is the presence of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why? * Is the abundance of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why? * Is the unexpectedly turning up of the sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
Most agree that the presence of sexually explicit material on commons in itself is not a problem in itself, and if it is, hosting some educational material on sexually explicit subjects is more important than shielding children from accessing the material.
The abundance of sexually explicit material on commons is odd, and probably worthless. We frankly don't need any more low quality pictures and videos of penises, masturbation, and other sexual acts that we already have lots of. Does it really hurt us to have so much of it though? As long as it doesn't get in the way, I'd say no. I'm not a commons person, and I know that loads of low quality redundant sexually explicit images have already been deleted - because it does get in the way. Should more be deleted? Likely. Should all of it be deleted? No. So what should we do? On each upload ask if it is a low quality sexually explicit image that doesn't really add anything to the content that's already there? That makes for an odd upload form. Ask those uploading not to upload more? I do believe we're already doing that, to little effect. (correct me if I'm wrong, if we're not, we probably should) But again, it's not it's presence that's a problem, it's its in-the-wayness.
It has been argued, and I agree with that, that there are two categories of people finding sexually explicit material in commons. Those explicitly trying to find it, and those that come across it by accident. This goes for all age groups. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that those looking for it will find it no matter what, and that shouldn't be the focus of improvement. What should be a focus, is improving the search functionality so that the accidental doesn't happen, or at least doesn't happen so ridiculously often as it does now: that is what I mean with it being in the way, as demonstrated by the famous toothbrush search result. Categorization and tagging could play a large role in this, as well as (recently implemented) improvements in the search back-end. It's something that has recently been brought up on this list. I'm horrible with the archives, but I'm sure someone else will be able to point to the relevant discussion, and what, if anything, has been undertaken on commons to act on this, or what blockers we still have.
Now I've focused only on sexually explicit content, because that's whats mostly what bothers people. Obviously, there is lots of other material I wouldn't like to expose children to. There has been a recent discussion about (valuable, suitable, and greatly disturbing) video material of WWII concentration camps being on the front page of commons. There is also a lot of images of medical issues that aren't the nicest to look at to put it mildly, and there is a lot of material on the atrocities of war as well. The first and third arguments go for this as well.
These problems are discussed frequently and have been quite recently. We haven't found and implemented a solution though. What I can say is that the 'objectional images on commons' subject is a frequent subject for this mailinglist. It's not that we don't want anyone to discuss it, but more that we discuss it all the time, would love to fix it, and haven't been able yet. Which makes many a little annoyed with someone from the outside coming in with an 'hey, hey, what about all the dick pics on commons? Did you know about those?'. We know, we're all annoyed with it, not only because it makes us a just target of ridicule, but more importantly because we've went over it again and again, quite often and quite recently, and we haven't got an answer yet. The community has discussed the fairly obvious option - an image filter - at great length, and didn't find that an acceptable solution.
I'd also like to hear about specific examples of content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their children.
lots and lots and lots. It's not hard to find. I've already touched on some subjects above, it should be easy to find.
Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a specific thread for that.
Harassment- I'd like to hear about existing policies around harassment and potential changes to such policies. In particular, I'm interested in how the community might tackle this problem to make the site a more comfortable place for the oft-mentioned female constituent that has long been in decline.
Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary about of time that is more than the few months that others have mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active contributor.
Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story.
,Wil
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
Stepping in to add another aspect to both questions, as I think it might focus the discussion.
Child Protection: Are children encouraged to use commons through any programs or outreach efforts of any kind? If so, is it morally and/or ethically justifiable to do so without protecting children in every way possible? Can that be done without removing graphic pics from commons?
Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like to hear about this from a female perspective.
Thanks. ,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm most interested in:
Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the content on Commons.
There is content on Wikipedia and on Commons, and probably on other projects as well, that most probably doesn't find suitable for children. What makes the matter worse is that some searches that one doesn't expect to bring up sexually explicit content do in fact bring it up, i.e. the famous toothbrush image. There are a couple of separate questions.
- Is the presence of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
- Is the abundance of sexually explicit material on commons a problem? Why?
- Is the unexpectedly turning up of the sexually explicit material on
commons a problem? Why?
Most agree that the presence of sexually explicit material on commons in itself is not a problem in itself, and if it is, hosting some educational material on sexually explicit subjects is more important than shielding children from accessing the material.
The abundance of sexually explicit material on commons is odd, and probably worthless. We frankly don't need any more low quality pictures and videos of penises, masturbation, and other sexual acts that we already have lots of. Does it really hurt us to have so much of it though? As long as it doesn't get in the way, I'd say no. I'm not a commons person, and I know that loads of low quality redundant sexually explicit images have already been deleted - because it does get in the way. Should more be deleted? Likely. Should all of it be deleted? No. So what should we do? On each upload ask if it is a low quality sexually explicit image that doesn't really add anything to the content that's already there? That makes for an odd upload form. Ask those uploading not to upload more? I do believe we're already doing that, to little effect. (correct me if I'm wrong, if we're not, we probably should) But again, it's not it's presence that's a problem, it's its in-the-wayness.
It has been argued, and I agree with that, that there are two categories of people finding sexually explicit material in commons. Those explicitly trying to find it, and those that come across it by accident. This goes for all age groups. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that those looking for it will find it no matter what, and that shouldn't be the focus of improvement. What should be a focus, is improving the search functionality so that the accidental doesn't happen, or at least doesn't happen so ridiculously often as it does now: that is what I mean with it being in the way, as demonstrated by the famous toothbrush search result. Categorization and tagging could play a large role in this, as well as (recently implemented) improvements in the search back-end. It's something that has recently been brought up on this list. I'm horrible with the archives, but I'm sure someone else will be able to point to the relevant discussion, and what, if anything, has been undertaken on commons to act on this, or what blockers we still have.
Now I've focused only on sexually explicit content, because that's whats mostly what bothers people. Obviously, there is lots of other material I wouldn't like to expose children to. There has been a recent discussion about (valuable, suitable, and greatly disturbing) video material of WWII concentration camps being on the front page of commons. There is also a lot of images of medical issues that aren't the nicest to look at to put it mildly, and there is a lot of material on the atrocities of war as well. The first and third arguments go for this as well.
These problems are discussed frequently and have been quite recently. We haven't found and implemented a solution though. What I can say is that the 'objectional images on commons' subject is a frequent subject for this mailinglist. It's not that we don't want anyone to discuss it, but more that we discuss it all the time, would love to fix it, and haven't been able yet. Which makes many a little annoyed with someone from the outside coming in with an 'hey, hey, what about all the dick pics on commons? Did you know about those?'. We know, we're all annoyed with it, not only because it makes us a just target of ridicule, but more importantly because we've went over it again and again, quite often and quite recently, and we haven't got an answer yet. The community has discussed the fairly obvious option - an image filter - at great length, and didn't find that an acceptable solution.
I'd also like to hear about specific examples of content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their children.
lots and lots and lots. It's not hard to find. I've already touched on some subjects above, it should be easy to find.
Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a specific thread for that.
Harassment- I'd like to hear about existing policies around harassment and potential changes to such policies. In particular, I'm interested in how the community might tackle this problem to make the site a more comfortable place for the oft-mentioned female constituent that has long been in decline.
Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary about of time that is more than the few months that others have mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active contributor.
Now, I'll just sit back and hear all sides of the story.
,Wil
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
Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like to hear about this from a female perspective.
A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all. But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for myself and others to post.
You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention. Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree, sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group of people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard admin action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like to hear about this from a female perspective.
A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all. But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for myself and others to post.
You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention. Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree, sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group of people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard admin action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil. I'm a woman who has held positions that have attracted abuse and harassment (directed both at me and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I have ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that was left on a talk page. Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And yet, you could not leave it alone. It was all about you, and how you were done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English Wikipedia (and other places) was treated. (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn away from IRC.)
So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes rather than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created that unsafe setting. Several community members tried to draw you away from continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be deterred. Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the Wikimedia community. But today, you went too far.
Risker
What???
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an unsafe environment?
Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like to hear about this from a female perspective.
A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all. But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for myself and others to post.
You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention. Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree, sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group of people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard admin action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil. I'm a woman who has held positions that have attracted abuse and harassment (directed both at me and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I have ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that was left on a talk page. Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And yet, you could not leave it alone. It was all about you, and how you were done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English Wikipedia (and other places) was treated. (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn away from IRC.)
So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes rather than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created that unsafe setting. Several community members tried to draw you away from continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be deterred. Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the Wikimedia community. But today, you went too far.
Risker _______________________________________________ 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:
Please take this particular aspect of the discussion offline without further postings about it.
There are entirely legitimate reasons for my request and for the expressions of concern from others that have come through in the past couple of hours. This request is not an attempt to stifle any form of Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the projects and their communities.
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
What???
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an unsafe environment?
Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like to hear about this from a female perspective.
A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at
all.
But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have
been
passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place
for
myself and others to post.
You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention. Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been
motivating
and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree, sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a
group
of people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard admin action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time
until
now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people
who
created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages
mentioning
me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil. I'm a woman who has held positions that have attracted abuse and harassment (directed both at me and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I
have
ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that
was
left on a talk page. Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And yet, you could not leave it alone. It was all about you, and how you
were
done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English
Wikipedia
(and other places) was treated. (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn
away
from IRC.)
So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes
rather
than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created that unsafe setting. Several community members tried to draw you away
from
continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be
deterred.
Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the Wikimedia community. But today, you went too far.
Risker _______________________________________________ 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
Why did you mail this to the public mailing list? It seems to be a private communication.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Wil:
Please take this particular aspect of the discussion offline without further postings about it.
There are entirely legitimate reasons for my request and for the expressions of concern from others that have come through in the past couple of hours. This request is not an attempt to stifle any form of Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the projects and their communities.
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
What???
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an unsafe environment?
Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com
wrote:
Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like to hear about this from a female perspective.
A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at
all.
But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have
been
passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place
for
myself and others to post.
You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention. Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been
motivating
and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree, sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a
group
of people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard admin action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time
until
now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people
who
created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages
mentioning
me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more in-depth "female perspective" here and now.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil. I'm a woman who has held positions that have attracted abuse and harassment (directed both at me and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I
have
ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that
was
left on a talk page. Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And yet, you could not leave it alone. It was all about you, and how you
were
done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English
Wikipedia
(and other places) was treated. (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn
away
from IRC.)
So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes
rather
than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created that unsafe setting. Several community members tried to draw you away
from
continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be
deterred.
Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the Wikimedia community. But today, you went too far.
Risker _______________________________________________ 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 <wllm@...> writes:
What???
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an unsafe environment?
I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list, probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if you wish.
Yours, Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and I've never actually seen.
Got it.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
What???
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an unsafe environment?
I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list, probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if you wish.
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
No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there are dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush. You appear to have accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who encourages you to try things out for yourself, no pressure. And you've worked very hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst the most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were had before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather basic google search.
You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted. You would have earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not to. Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much. But on a day when Lila should be celebrating, she is instead trying to deal with the fallout of her life partner creating havoc amongst her staff and the volunteers who contribute to the projects for which she will be imminently responsible for. That's sad beyond words.
Risker
On 28 May 2014 23:54, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and I've never actually seen.
Got it.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
What???
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an unsafe environment?
I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list, probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if
you
wish.
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
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
Thanks, Risker. I think there are a few inaccuracies in there.
* I link to threads on Wikipediocracy to demonstrate what I've actually said. In some cases, it has been characterized here without context. I'd prefer everyone just look at the original so that there are no misconceptions. What other people post there is their own business. I don't read the personal stuff, in any case, and I very actively discourage it there.
* I believe I only talked about that one experience on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel and haven't said anything about any other channels.
* I have told the people on Wikipediocracy countless times that I have no influence on Lila's profession decisions and that I refuse to get involved with the WMF at all for the time being. I've told everyone here, too, for that matter. I specifically said that I don't read the personal stuff on Wikipediocracy, and that I don't discuss WMF matters- staff or otherwise- with Lila.
* Every experience that I've discussed here has been my own.
* I don't know what security concerns you are talking about. Could you elaborate with links?
* It's true. I value my self-respect far more than anyone else's, and I maintain it by being true to myself and to everyone I deal with. But I do value the respect of Wikimedians. In the end, I will either earn it or not by continuing to be true to myself and acting in good faith in all my dealings.
* Again, Lila's career is her own. If others choose to bring my actions to her doorstep, it is their call. I've been very clear about my role with respect to the WMF; basically, there isn't one. And I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would stop bringing our private relationship in to this discussion. I've decided that I won't have anything to do with the WMF in any way. So our private lives are no longer the community's business.
* I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies, but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.
I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally upsetting?
Thanks again! ,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there are dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush. You appear to have accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who encourages you to try things out for yourself, no pressure. And you've worked very hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst the most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were had before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather basic google search.
You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted. You would have earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not to. Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much. But on a day when Lila should be celebrating, she is instead trying to deal with the fallout of her life partner creating havoc amongst her staff and the volunteers who contribute to the projects for which she will be imminently responsible for. That's sad beyond words.
Risker
On 28 May 2014 23:54, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and I've never actually seen.
Got it.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
What???
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an unsafe environment?
I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list, probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if
you
wish.
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
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 links? They're harassment. If you don't understand that, you're in no position to initiate a discussion about the subject.
Risker
On 29 May 2014 01:46, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, Risker. I think there are a few inaccuracies in there.
- I link to threads on Wikipediocracy to demonstrate what I've
actually said. In some cases, it has been characterized here without context. I'd prefer everyone just look at the original so that there are no misconceptions. What other people post there is their own business. I don't read the personal stuff, in any case, and I very actively discourage it there.
- I believe I only talked about that one experience on the
#wikipedia-en IRC channel and haven't said anything about any other channels.
- I have told the people on Wikipediocracy countless times that I have
no influence on Lila's profession decisions and that I refuse to get involved with the WMF at all for the time being. I've told everyone here, too, for that matter. I specifically said that I don't read the personal stuff on Wikipediocracy, and that I don't discuss WMF matters- staff or otherwise- with Lila.
Every experience that I've discussed here has been my own.
I don't know what security concerns you are talking about. Could you
elaborate with links?
- It's true. I value my self-respect far more than anyone else's, and
I maintain it by being true to myself and to everyone I deal with. But I do value the respect of Wikimedians. In the end, I will either earn it or not by continuing to be true to myself and acting in good faith in all my dealings.
- Again, Lila's career is her own. If others choose to bring my
actions to her doorstep, it is their call. I've been very clear about my role with respect to the WMF; basically, there isn't one. And I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would stop bringing our private relationship in to this discussion. I've decided that I won't have anything to do with the WMF in any way. So our private lives are no longer the community's business.
- I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies, but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.
I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally upsetting?
Thanks again! ,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there
are
dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush. You appear to have accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who
encourages
you to try things out for yourself, no pressure. And you've worked very hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst
the
most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were
had
before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather
basic
google search.
You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted. You would have earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not
to.
Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much. But on a day when Lila should be celebrating, she is instead trying to
deal
with the fallout of her life partner creating havoc amongst her staff and the volunteers who contribute to the projects for which she will be imminently responsible for. That's sad beyond words.
Risker
On 28 May 2014 23:54, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and I've never actually seen.
Got it.
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
What???
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an unsafe environment?
I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
*No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this
on-list,
probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list
if
you
wish.
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
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
2014-05-29 7:46 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com:
- I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies, but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.
I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally upsetting?
Thanks again! ,Wil
Wil, if the discussions are outdated, so are the questions, since they for years already have been considered at length on-wiki with a lot of spill-off here.
In order to make progress in any direction, new suggestions that can obtain consensus are needed. As far as I can see, you raise old questions without apparently showing interest in the comprehensive past treatment and without presenting any new point of view or a perspective that points to a solution. In addition, as I and others have remarked earlier, the questions basically belong to meta and not on this list.
This is what I feel you 'have done wrong' and - since that takes away from my available time and from my reading about other topics here - that is what upsets me. Regards, Thyge
Returning briefly to NSFW content on Wikimedia sites, there has been some press coverage in Germany these past couple of days:
* http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/jugendgefaehrdend-porno-links-in-wikiped...
* http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/die-porno-links-in-wikipedia-ein-politis...
* http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/porno-links-in-wikipedia-deutscher-lehre...
* http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Lehrerverband-erzuernt-ueber-Porno-Li...
* http://www.noz.de/deutschland-welt/politik/artikel/479778/lehrerverband-krit...
* http://www.bild.de/news/inland/pornografie/porno-alarm-bei-wikipedia-lehrer-...
* http://www.wa.de/nachrichten/nrw/lehrer-nachrichtenseite-news4teachersde-kri...
* http://derstandard.at/2000001726824/Deutscher-Lehrerverband-alarmiert-von-Po...
Apparently, the German Teachers' Association has called on the German Education Minister and Wikipedia to take action.
What I found surprising here, given the history of the topic within the Wikimedia movement, was the response from a Wikimedia Germany spokesperson in the first article linked above:
---o0o---
Asked about this content by News4teachers.de, those in charge of Wikipedia in Germany point to the U.S. parent company. A spokesman told our editors: "As a matter of fact, we at Wikimedia Germany have no influence on what is to be found on Wikipedia and its sister projects (such as the free media portal, Wikimedia Commons). All of these sites are hosted and managed by the Wikimedia Foundation in the U.S."
---o0o---
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
2014-05-29 7:46 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com:
- I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies, but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.
I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally upsetting?
Thanks again! ,Wil
Wil, if the discussions are outdated, so are the questions, since they for years already have been considered at length on-wiki with a lot of spill-off here.
In order to make progress in any direction, new suggestions that can obtain consensus are needed. As far as I can see, you raise old questions without apparently showing interest in the comprehensive past treatment and without presenting any new point of view or a perspective that points to a solution. In addition, as I and others have remarked earlier, the questions basically belong to meta and not on this list.
This is what I feel you 'have done wrong' and - since that takes away from my available time and from my reading about other topics here - that is what upsets me. Regards, Thyge _______________________________________________ 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
Being the spokesperson, the statement is by and large correct, although not given in this context but as a reply to a content-related question from one day earlier. It was used in the linked news source articel, to which the teacher's association reacted within an hour. As I've written elsewhere, this was clearly spun. Unusually aggressive move. The association demands that Wikipedia and all free-of-charge eduational services be "stopped", being unfit for school children. It also demands that printed encycopledias be reintroduced to schools and school libraries be better funded, ...printed material, that is.
Best Michael
2014-06-02 23:06 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com:
Returning briefly to NSFW content on Wikimedia sites, there has been some press coverage in Germany these past couple of days:
http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/jugendgefaehrdend-porno-links-in-wikiped...
http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/die-porno-links-in-wikipedia-ein-politis...
http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/porno-links-in-wikipedia-deutscher-lehre...
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Lehrerverband-erzuernt-ueber-Porno-Li...
http://www.noz.de/deutschland-welt/politik/artikel/479778/lehrerverband-krit...
http://www.bild.de/news/inland/pornografie/porno-alarm-bei-wikipedia-lehrer-...
http://www.wa.de/nachrichten/nrw/lehrer-nachrichtenseite-news4teachersde-kri...
http://derstandard.at/2000001726824/Deutscher-Lehrerverband-alarmiert-von-Po...
Apparently, the German Teachers' Association has called on the German Education Minister and Wikipedia to take action.
What I found surprising here, given the history of the topic within the Wikimedia movement, was the response from a Wikimedia Germany spokesperson in the first article linked above:
---o0o---
Asked about this content by News4teachers.de, those in charge of Wikipedia in Germany point to the U.S. parent company. A spokesman told our editors: "As a matter of fact, we at Wikimedia Germany have no influence on what is to be found on Wikipedia and its sister projects (such as the free media portal, Wikimedia Commons). All of these sites are hosted and managed by the Wikimedia Foundation in the U.S."
---o0o---
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
2014-05-29 7:46 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com:
- I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies, but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.
I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally upsetting?
Thanks again! ,Wil
Wil, if the discussions are outdated, so are the questions, since they for years already have been considered at length on-wiki with a lot of spill-off here.
In order to make progress in any direction, new suggestions that can
obtain
consensus are needed. As far as I can see, you raise old questions
without
apparently showing interest in the comprehensive past treatment and
without
presenting any new point of view or a perspective that points to a solution. In addition, as I and others have remarked earlier, the questions basically belong to meta and not on this list.
This is what I feel you 'have done wrong' and - since that takes away
from
my available time and from my reading about other topics here - that is what upsets me. Regards, Thyge _______________________________________________ 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 Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Michael Jahn michael.jahn@wikimedia.de wrote:
Being the spokesperson, the statement is by and large correct, although not given in this context but as a reply to a content-related question from one day earlier. It was used in the linked news source articel, to which the teacher's association reacted within an hour. As I've written elsewhere, this was clearly spun. Unusually aggressive move. The association demands that Wikipedia and all free-of-charge eduational services be "stopped", being unfit for school children. It also demands that printed encycopledias be reintroduced to schools and school libraries be better funded, ...printed material, that is.
Best Michael
I see. Presenting your statement in that context, as though it was your comment on that particular content, was not quite appropriate. It made it sound as though you were saying the Wikimedia Foundation in the US was actively curating that content, rather than an international community of volunteers. I'd point that out to them.
I see. Presenting your statement in that context, as though it was your comment on that particular content, was not quite appropriate. It made it sound as though you were saying the Wikimedia Foundation in the US was actively curating that content, rather than an international community of volunteers. I'd point that out to them.
And now I see your concern. You're right. That anyone can edit and that Wikipedia has been based on volunteer efforts from the outset has been among my major talking points, of course. I made that clear in today's follow-up media inquiries. And no, I never refer to the WMF as curating content. On a side note, though: I do point out to people that the Foundation is hosting the Wikimedia projects, especially when I feel that inquiries take a turn towards legal questions. I don't interfere there and from my experience most people refrain from taking their stuff the WMF legal team. If they don't, they're serious, and then the legal team people are the right folks to deal with it. If they do, they weren't serious in the first place. Best Michael
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,
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Stepping in to add another aspect to both questions, as I think it might focus the discussion.
Child Protection: Are children encouraged to use commons through any programs or outreach efforts of any kind?
Who are you addressing that question to?
Do you want every NGO on this list to give you a complete list of any program that they are running which may be of concern to you?
Do you want a WMF staff member to do an audit of all Wikimedia related programs across the world, many of which are not funded by WMF?
Who is paying to provide answers for your curiosity?
Ok, those questions are a bit rough ... but ...
If you are not expecting to be treated as anyone but your own self, you'll need to start doing you own research:
https://www.google.co.id/search?q=Wikimedia+school+programs+-site:en.wikiped... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/school https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/school
Create a list of potential problematic programs, then report them here for serious focused discussion.
If so, is it morally and/or ethically justifiable to do so without protecting children in every way possible?
Why ask this question when you dont have answers to the previous question. See next section for more on this question.
Can that be done without removing graphic pics from commons?
If you have read the following, then you know the answer to that.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming
In which case, in my mind at least, the question is why havent we implemented some of the simple improvements needed to reduce exposure to the most controversial content. This is a complex issue, and hasnt been solved in over ten years, so dont expect that a few quick short emails with interesting questions is going to crack this nut. It requires hard work.
Please ask your questions, and add your insights, on that meta page, or come to the 'user talk' pages of people who have been active in that meta discussion. Get to know the main players - you'll be talking with them regularly for at least year about this issue, I hope, if you want to see any improvements.
Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or other organizations?
Why ask; you know the answer to this.
If we're not doing everything to protect women and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like to hear about this from a female perspective.
"Think of the women"?
How do we do _everything_ to protect them? That is a lot of stuff to do? Do they want "we" doing _everything_ to protect them? The world over is still struggling with this. There is consensus that the Wikimedia movement wants to be at the forefront of that struggle, and we are not there yet.
More appropriate questions are:
What are the measures that Wikimedia is currently doing to ensure female-friendly environments.
What are the measures that other organisations are doing to ensure female-friendly environments, which Wikimedia should be considering.
Are there commonly accepted best practices which the Wikimedia movement hasnt implemented; if so, what is blocking progress.
I suggest you look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Learning_patterns
And ask any follow up questions you have *on meta* - not here.
Wil, it is great you are getting a crash course in the wiki world. It isnt good that it is happening on wikimedia-l, where the entire 'movement' must watch your every bump and bingle. You can do it all in public, on the meta project. That way, only the people who want to help or hinder you need participate in that crash course spectacle.
-- John Vandenberg
I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.
I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement and I'm grateful for that.
And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need only consult https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ for memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November 2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)
MZMcBride
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.
I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement and I'm grateful for that.
This.
And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need only consult https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ for memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November 2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)
2007 was...oh man.
I was such an immature asshat. How the heck did I never get banned?
-Chad
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Chad Horohoe chorohoe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts.
I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement
and
I'm grateful for that.
This.
Yep.
And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need only consult https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ for memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November 2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.)
2007 was...oh man.
I was such an immature asshat. How the heck did I never get banned?
What surprises me is how many of the names on the June 2007 archive are people we still hear from. Here's to old-timers. :)
pb
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org