Fuck the community, who cares - Wikimedia-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Fuck the community, who cares

[Announce] WMMX's assembly and new...

Strategic goals of Wikimania

Tomasz W. Kozlowski

7 Apr 2014 7 Apr '14

9:03 a.m.

This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a "prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters" as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: "if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities" and "Fuck the community, who cares." I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes> * <http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/> Tomasz

Reply

Show replies by date

Fred Bauder

7 Apr 7 Apr

9:38 a.m.

Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. "Community support" just becomes a box to check. Fred

This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a "prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters" as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen PrÃ¶Ãdorf, as saying: "if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities" and "Fuck the community, who cares." I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes> * <http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/> Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Ziko van Dijk

9:46 a.m.

Hello, I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Kind regards Ziko Am Montag, 7. April 2014 schrieb Fred Bauder :

Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. "Community support" just becomes a box to check. Fred

This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a "prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters" as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen PrÃ¶ÃŸdorf, as saying: "if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities" and "Fuck the community, who cares." I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * <

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_…

* <

http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von…

Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>

?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> ?subject=unsubscribe>

-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ziko van Dijk Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://wikimedia.nl --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply

Johan Jönsson

9:55 a.m.

2014-04-07 11:46 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk <vandijk(a)wmnederland.nl>nl>:

Hello, I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism...

Hear, hear. The senitment would be extremely problematic if widespread, of course. But we don't need a great debate based on one (out-of-context) quote from one anonymous person. //Johan Jönsson -- http://wikipediabloggen.se

Reply

Tomasz W. Kozlowski

10:16 a.m.

Ziko van Dijk wrote

I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism...

Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz

Reply

David Gerard

10:18 a.m.

On 7 April 2014 11:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote:

I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities.

That translates to "OK, I have nothing; however, I'll assert I do anyway." - d.

Reply

Tomasz W. Kozlowski

10:25 a.m.

David Gerard wrote:

That translates to "OK, I have nothing; however, I'll assert I do anyway."

Which of the words from the sentence I wrote require translation for you? The idea that there are divisions between chapters and communities is not a new one; I personally have seen people mention it in various places many, many times. If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community" would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz

Reply

Fæ

10:33 a.m.

If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community" would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz

Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward publicly and explain what they meant? If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone who made views like this, while representing our community of volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain themselves in their own words. Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Reply

Steffen Prößdorf

10:42 a.m.

Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>:

If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community" would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz

Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward publicly and explain what they meant? If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone who made views like this, while representing our community of volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain themselves in their own words. Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- Steffen Prößdorf Treasurer, member of the board Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge http://wikimedia.de Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.

Reply

Fæ

10:56 a.m.

Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf <steffen.proessdorf(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:

Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>: > > If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community" would fit > > quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. > > Tomasz > > Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward > publicly and explain what they meant? > > If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone > who made views like this, while representing our community of > volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or > appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to > demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person > they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain > themselves in their own words. > > Fae

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Reply

Chris Keating

11:10 a.m.

I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf <steffen.proessdorf(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:

Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>: > > If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community" would

fit

> > quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. > > Tomasz > > Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward > publicly and explain what they meant? > > If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone > who made views like this, while representing our community of > volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or > appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to > demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person > they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain > themselves in their own words. > > Fae

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Fæ

11:27 a.m.

Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz' request: "the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately". Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you, or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of "fuck the community"? I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can their board. Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Reque… Fae On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf <steffen.proessdorf(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:

Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>: > > If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community" would

fit

> > quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. > > Tomasz > > Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward > publicly and explain what they meant? > > If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone > who made views like this, while representing our community of > volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or > appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to > demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person > they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain > themselves in their own words. > > Fae

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

Reply

Michael Maggs

12:09 p.m.

I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on. I am also saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third party, but restated shorn of all context. One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission (which we all agree on, surely?). I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a “philosophy”. Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be anathema to us? No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun. Michael On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz' request: "the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately". Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you, or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of "fuck the community"? I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can their board. Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Reque… Fae On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf <steffen.proessdorf(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:

Hi Folks, please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>: >> If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community" would

fit

>> quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. >> Tomasz > > Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward > publicly and explain what they meant? > > If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone > who made views like this, while representing our community of > volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or > appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to > demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person > they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain > themselves in their own words. > > Fae

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Fæ

12:25 p.m.

Michael, Wikimedia UK is in the fortunate position that due to my original work with Peter on governance, you and all trustees on your board have signed a trustee code committing them to the Nolan principles. This makes it obvious that if any of the UK Trustees that made public statements of this sort (this was a publicly funded workshop with public minutes) they would be required to resign their position. Making public personal attacks against community members I would say could easily be a resigning matter too. Other chapters are not so fortunate to have such a professionally created body of bureaucracy. I am disappointed, for reasons already expressed in this thread. Fae On 7 April 2014 13:09, Michael Maggs <Michael(a)maggs.name> wrote:

I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs public investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on. I am also saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third party, but restated shorn of all context. One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that witch hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission (which we all agree on, surely?). I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said that, if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a “philosophy”. Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would be anathema to us? No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun. Michael On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz' request: "the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately". Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you, or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of "fuck the community"? I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can their board. Links: 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Reque… Fae On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or take this story on tangents. Fae On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf <steffen.proessdorf(a)wikimedia.de> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. > I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the > conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing > opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do > not harp on this single quote. > > Thanks, > Steffen > > > 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>: > >>> If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community" would fit >>> quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. >>> Tomasz >> >> Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward >> publicly and explain what they meant? >> >> If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect someone >> who made views like this, while representing our community of >> volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or >> appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to >> demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the person >> they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and explain >> themselves in their own words. >> >> Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

Reply

Bence Damokos

12:37 p.m.

I am not sure it would qualify as a public statement rather than a sentence taken and quoted out of context from a closed meeting - in other words, it was not made at a public, accessible location, rather at a closed meeting (with limited places, an entrance fee, etc.). While there are published notes, the apparent quote is not present in them, and I would not be surprised if the person in question was merely making a point to foster debate. For what its worth, rules like the one at the meeting can in theory foster open debate on controversial topics (see e.g. the [[Chatham House Rule]]) and we should respect them. I for one would be sad if we were not able to experiment with new models that foster open debate (while still maintaining a level of transparency). Best regards, Bence On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Michael, Wikimedia UK is in the fortunate position that due to my original work with Peter on governance, you and all trustees on your board have signed a trustee code committing them to the Nolan principles. This makes it obvious that if any of the UK Trustees that made public statements of this sort (this was a publicly funded workshop with public minutes) they would be required to resign their position. Making public personal attacks against community members I would say could easily be a resigning matter too. Other chapters are not so fortunate to have such a professionally created body of bureaucracy. I am disappointed, for reasons already expressed in this thread. Fae On 7 April 2014 13:09, Michael Maggs <Michael(a)maggs.name> wrote:

I am really saddened by the incessant demands that the community needs

public investigations, heads to roll, public apologies and so on. I am also saddened by repeated demands that specific community members state publicly whether they do or do not agree with something allegedly said by a third party, but restated shorn of all context.

One would have thought that we would all have learned from history that

witch hunts never turn out well, but apparently not. It’s almost as if the community has a death wish and has far greater interest in internecine warfare than in actively attempting to work together to further our mission (which we all agree on, surely?).

I was not myself at the governance workshop, and have no idea who said

that, if anyone, but I do find it odd that Fae would find it necessary to demand of a trustee whether he does or does not accept the alleged quote as a “philosophy”.

Would it help if I, as WMUK chair, said that such a “philosophy” would

be anathema to us? No, that probably won’t help, as it is an entirely self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun.

Michael On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics by defaming > people you don't like with personal attacks, please read Tomasz' > request: "the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is > absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters > immediately". > > Now, show some leadership and answer a simple direct question. Do you, > or do you not as a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the person that was > responsible for leading this costly workshop, reject the philosophy of > "fuck the community"? > > I have asked for the person that made this statement to come forward > and explain themselves. If they cannot, then they must realise they > can no longer claim to be accountable to the community and neither can > their board. > > Links: > 1.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Reque…

> Fae > > On 7 April 2014 12:10, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

>> I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was

that

>> individual contributions were made on a confidential and

non-attributable

>> basis. >> >> This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry >> about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of

some

>> out-of-context quotes. >> >> Chris >> On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia >>> organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our >>> movement. If you misquoted please explain that this is the case. >>> >>> As at a public workshop that cost the movement a significant amount of >>> our donor's money to pay for, there is no reason for secrecy about >>> this, everyone there is accountable for their time spent at that >>> workshop. The quote has not been challenged. It would benefit us all >>> to hear why this was said and to be open to questions about their >>> leadership role, from the person that made this public statement. >>> >>> Personally, if an elected or appointed board level member of a chapter >>> is making public statements like this, I do not want them representing >>> our movement if they are going to hide away in secret when asked about >>> it. You know who they are, please ask them to speak for themselves >>> rather than relying on you and your colleagues to run interference or >>> take this story on tangents. >>> >>> Fae >>> >>> On 7 April 2014 11:42, Steffen Prößdorf <

steffen.proessdorf(a)wikimedia.de>

>>> wrote: >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> please do not pick out that single point and overestimate it. >>>> I have not mentioned this to dupe anyone, but only to illustrate the >>>> conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing >>>> opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides,

please do

>>>> not harp on this single quote. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Steffen >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>: >>>> >>>>>> If that is indeed the case, the comment to "fuck the community"

would

>>> fit >>>>>> quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. >>>>>> Tomasz >>>>> >>>>> Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward >>>>> publicly and explain what they meant? >>>>> >>>>> If this was anything more than a bad joke, then I would expect

someone

>>>>> who made views like this, while representing our community of >>>>> volunteers to be asked by their Board to resign their elected or >>>>> appointed position. I urge those who were at the meeting, to >>>>> demonstrate appropriate community leadership and encourage the

person

>>>>> they know to have expressed this viewpoint to come forward and

explain

>>>>> themselves in their own words. >>>>> >>>>> Fae >>> -- >>> faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

> > > > -- > faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Tomasz W. Kozlowski

11:37 a.m.

Chris Keating wrote:

This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes.

I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal attacks. If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you. What a shameful comment, Chris. Tomasz

Reply

Christophe Henner

11:54 a.m.

Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually saying the opposite of the original meaning. The discussion was about "what are the goals of the Wikimedia Organizations?". Why do they exist? If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make organizations think a little more about the communities instead of sheer free knowledge production. In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to speak a lot :() you could say that I said "let's disband all Wikimedia Organizations". Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the case here, to change it's true meaning. No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we are all part of that community. Best, -- Christophe On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote:

Chris Keating wrote:

This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes.

I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal attacks. If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you. What a shameful comment, Chris. Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Jan-Bart de Vreede

12:07 p.m.

Hi All, I was not present at this meeting, but gather that it was a weekend that was valued by all that attended. As Chris has already indicated, he does not agree with the remark and I think that all of us disagree with the remar (and that is discounting the fact that the whole statement is taken out of context which makes a big difference) But in the middle of a heated discussion, things get said. Chris has indicated that one of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis. And I agree that I would be terrible to break this confidentiality as this would severely limit the effectiveness of future sessions within the movement because feel people that they cannot be frank. As a movement we have a tremendous challenge ahead of us in the coming years, and we need open interaction amongst the different entities in order to make progress on these goals. Are we really interested in a movement where all volunteer board members are constantly being politically correct and cannot misspeak (whereas other community members can?). I for one would enjoy an open environment rather than a punishing one which closely resembles some of the political environments we read so much about. Can we assume that the feedback has already reached the person in question (and the person probably got more than enough feedback during and after the session). Does it really benefit us as a movement to force this person to resign or be publicly shamed? Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees PS: whenever Christophe speaks I would be likely to cheer, only to realise minutes later… “What the #(*$& did I just agree with?” ;) On 07 Apr 2014, at 13:54, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually saying the opposite of the original meaning. The discussion was about "what are the goals of the Wikimedia Organizations?". Why do they exist? If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make organizations think a little more about the communities instead of sheer free knowledge production. In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to speak a lot :() you could say that I said "let's disband all Wikimedia Organizations". Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the case here, to change it's true meaning. No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we are all part of that community. Best, -- Christophe On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote:

Chris Keating wrote:

This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes.

I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal attacks. If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you. What a shameful comment, Chris. Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Martijn Hoekstra

11:59 a.m.

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net>wrote;wrote:

Chris Keating wrote: This was exactly because we wanted people to speak freely and not worry

about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes.

I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal attacks. If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.

I call no real Scotsman. --Martijn Hoekstra

What a shameful comment, Chris. Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Russavia

12:08 p.m.

Chris On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

I'd certainly hope not. One of the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a confidential and non-attributable basis.

Sounds to me like the Wikimedian version of the Bilderberg Group. Except Bilderberg don't generally take photos of those present.[1] Is there a list of participants available at this workshop? Or is everyone who was present available to see in this photo? But seriously, Chris, who set these ground-rules? Do you think that having Bilderberg-like secrecy in the "movement" is a good thing? Cheers Russavia [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boards_workshop_2014_group_photo.jpg

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

10:52 a.m.

Hoi, What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote:

Ziko van Dijk wrote I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in

public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism...

Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Russavia

11:04 a.m.

I don't believe Tomasz said anything about hanging them and hanging them high. But if there are movementarians who hold this point of view, they should be able to speak up publicly and present that point of view. I, for one, don't disagree with paid editing, so long as it is inline with expected community standards. Having such a person within the chapters who does hold such views is a great thing (perhaps not the fuck the community part though), and they should be encouraged to come forward and make their views known. Whether they are prepared for the tarring and feathering they will receive at the hands of dedicated movementarians is another matter entirely. Obviously it is an issue for some, otherwise Steffen wouldn't have blabbed about it to The Signpost. But no-one wants a repeat of the disgraceful public hanging that Fae suffered at their hands. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Hoi, What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote:

Ziko van Dijk wrote I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in

public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism...

Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes

on

Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person

is.

I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not

sure.

Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Hubert Laska

10:45 p.m.

With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the basis for their own position. Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits and edits. Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos, one after another and upload them? I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If this has occured, he would not have written this in his blog. h Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

Hoi, What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote:

Ziko van Dijk wrote I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in

public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism...

Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

8 Apr 8 Apr

6:22 a.m.

Hoi, Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share the sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us. Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a large margin. There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us. To say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored. There are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by license. The later can and should be ignored as well. However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so but they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others. Thanks, GerardM On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska(a)gmx.at> wrote:

With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the basis for their own position. Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits and edits. Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos, one after another and upload them? I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If this has occured, he would not have written this in his blog. h Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: Hoi,

What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote: Ziko van Dijk wrote

I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in

public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during

a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Jane Darnell

8:40 a.m.

Gerard, I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0 information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share CC-0 information under a CC-by license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information under a CC-by license, no? O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing. Jane PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties. 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

Hoi, Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share the sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us. Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a large margin. There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us. To say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored. There are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by license. The later can and should be ignored as well. However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so but they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others. Thanks, GerardM On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska(a)gmx.at> wrote:

With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the basis for their own position. Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits and edits. Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos, one after another and upload them? I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If this has occured, he would not have written this in his blog. h Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: Hoi,

What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote: Ziko van Dijk wrote

I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in > public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate > criticism... > > Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

9:14 a.m.

Hoi,

From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM

wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden. When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest that information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer part of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set of information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of the data is no longer an issue. Thanks, GerardM On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Gerard, I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0 information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share CC-0 information under a CC-by license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information under a CC-by license, no? O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing. Jane PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties. 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

Hoi, Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share

the

sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us. Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a

large

margin. There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us.

To

say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored.

There

are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by license. The later can and should be ignored as well. However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so

but

they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others. Thanks, GerardM On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska(a)gmx.at> wrote: > With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is

the

> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make

decisions

> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then

assume

> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are

the

> basis for their own position. > > Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me > is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by

edits

> and edits. > > Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking

photos,

> one after another and upload them? > > I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart > explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If > this > has occured, he would not have written this in his blog. > > h > Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > > Hoi, >> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? >> >> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... >> >> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will

that

>> be >> in everyone's benefit?? >> Thanks, >> Gerard >> >> >> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> >> wrote: >> >> Ziko van Dijk wrote >>> >>> >>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said

in

>>> >>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate >>>> criticism... >>>> >>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made

during

>>> a >>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the

minutes

>>> on >>> Meta). >>> >>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the

fact

>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; >>> I'm >>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that

person

>>> is. >>> >>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a >>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; >>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some >>> chapters and their respective communities. >>> >>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better >>> what's >>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not >>> sure. >>> >>> >>> Tomasz >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Martijn Hoekstra

9:27 a.m.

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Hoi, From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden. When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest that information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer part of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set of information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of the data is no longer an issue. Thanks, GerardM

Why are we talking about the license of Wikidata in this thread? Come to think of it, why are we still talking at all in this thread?

On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Gerard, I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0 information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share CC-0 information under a CC-by license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information under a CC-by license, no? O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing. Jane PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties. 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>: > Hoi, > Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all > knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what

we

> do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share > information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity

to

do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share

the > sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata

we

share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us. Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a

large > margin. > > There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices

that

> realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to

us.

To

say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored.

There > are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0 > license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by > license. The later can and should be ignored as well. > > However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will

say

> that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it

is

to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so

but

they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others. Thanks, GerardM On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska(a)gmx.at> wrote: > With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is

the

> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make

decisions

> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then

assume

> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are

the >> basis for their own position. >> >> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for

me

> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by

edits

> and edits. > > Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking

photos,

> one after another and upload them? > > I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart > explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If > this > has occured, he would not have written this in his blog. > > h > Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > > Hoi, >> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? >> >> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... >> >> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will

that

>> be >> in everyone's benefit?? >> Thanks, >> Gerard >> >> >> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> >> wrote: >> >> Ziko van Dijk wrote >>> >>> >>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said

in

>>> >>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate >>>> criticism... >>>> >>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made

during

>>> a >>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the

minutes

>>> on >>> Meta). >>> >>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the

fact >>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that

workshop;

>>> I'm >>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that

person >>>> is. >>>> >>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a >>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; >>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between

some

>>>> chapters and their respective communities. >>>> >>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better >>>> what's >>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm

not

>>>> sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tomasz >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 >>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 >> Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

10:20 a.m.

Hoi, One reason is that the license of Wikidata is questioned by members of the Wikidata community. Thanks, GerardM On 8 April 2014 11:27, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Hoi, From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden. When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest

that

information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer

part

of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set

of

information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of the data is no longer an issue. Thanks, GerardM

Why are we talking about the license of Wikidata in this thread? Come to think of it, why are we still talking at all in this thread?

On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Gerard, I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0 information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share CC-0 information under a CC-by license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information under a CC-by license, no? O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing. Jane PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties. 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com

: > > Hoi, > > Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all > > knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of

what

we > > do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share > > information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the

opportunity

to > > do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we

share

the > sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata

we

share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us. Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a

large > margin. > > There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices

that

> realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to

us. > To > > say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored. > There > > are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0 > > license and there are those who want to share information under a

CC-by

> license. The later can and should be ignored as well. > > However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will

say > > that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully,

it

is > > to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the > > sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the > > extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by

a

> > GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that > > information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do

so

> but > > they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska(a)gmx.at> wrote: > > > >> With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas,

is

> the > >> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make > decisions > >> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then > assume > >> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services

are

> the > >> basis for their own position. > >> > >> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse

for

me > >> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by > edits > >> and edits. > >> > >> Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking > photos, > >> one after another and upload them? > >> > >> I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart > >> explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process.

If

> this > has occured, he would not have written this in his blog. > > h > Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > > Hoi, >> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? >> >> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... >> >> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will

that >>> be >>> in everyone's benefit?? >>> Thanks, >>> Gerard >>> >>> >>> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net

> >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Ziko van Dijk wrote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian",

said

in

>>> >>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate >>>> criticism... >>>> >>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made

during

>>> a >>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the

minutes

>>> on >>> Meta). >>> >>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the

fact >>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that

workshop; > >>>> I'm > >>>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that > person > >>>> is. > >>>> > >>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that

such a

> >>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in

passing";

>>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between

some

>>>> chapters and their respective communities. >>>> >>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better >>>> what's >>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm

not

>>>> sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tomasz >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 >>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 > >> Wikimedia-l(a)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 > > Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Balázs Viczián

9 Apr 9 Apr

5:59 a.m.

Imo the lines were said by a member of a board of a chapter in her official capacity as she was attending a board training paid fully by the "global community" (unless she paid everything on her own and never got reimbursed for anything) If you keep up with this approach (which will for sure culminate in actions clearly ignoring/"fucking" the community) in one day you will reach the point when the community will say "so, then fuck you too". Obviously not today, neither tomorrow, but when it comes, that day will be the last day, when you were able to "buy free stuff" or travel around the world for "free" or in short: have money. Until that day comes it is true that this is not an issue, you can get away with it, 'nuff said. The main issue here are her solution(s) to problem solving/fulfilling the "mission". Even worse that a handful of people supports it in this thread, namely a) spending money or b) spending more money. This is very poor/lazy thinking. Those having these two only in mind (or as primary solutions), should leave their chapter positions for more creative people. Cheers, Vince PS: this thread strenghtens my impression [1] that some chapters are rather breakaway groups than (integral) parts of their local community. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFuture_of_the_Wikimedia_… 2014.04.08. 12:21, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> ezt írta:

Hoi, One reason is that the license of Wikidata is questioned by members of the Wikidata community. Thanks, GerardM On 8 April 2014 11:27, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > Hoi, > From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM > wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we > cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find

the

same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden. When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest

that

information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer

part

of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set

of > information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of

the

data is no longer an issue. Thanks, GerardM

Why are we talking about the license of Wikidata in this thread? Come to think of it, why are we still talking at all in this thread? > > > On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Gerard, > > I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0 > > information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want > > to share CC-0 information under a CC-by > > license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information > > under a CC-by license, no? > > > > O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing. > > > > Jane > > PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a > > member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every > > right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues > > are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of > > one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other

members

> > of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe > > it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in > > the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I > > heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties. > > > > 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <

gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com

: > > Hoi, > > Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all > > knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of

what

we > > do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share > > information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the

opportunity

to > > do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we

share > > the > > > sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with

Wikidata

> we > > > share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us. > > > > > > Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by

a

> > large > > > margin. > > > > > > There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the

practices

> that > > > realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available

to

> us. > > To > > > say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be

ignored.

> > There > > > are organisations that want to share information with us under a

CC-0

> > license and there are those who want to share information under a

CC-by > > > license. The later can and should be ignored as well. > > > > > > However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I

will

say > > that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully,

it > is > > > to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but

the

> > > sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is

the

> > > extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided

by

a > > > GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that > > > information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can

do

so

> but > > they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska(a)gmx.at> wrote: > > > >> With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas,

is

> the > >> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make > decisions > >> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then > assume > >> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services

are

> the > >> basis for their own position. > >> > >> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse

for > me > > >> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get

by

> > edits > > >> and edits. > > >> > > >> Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking > > photos, > > >> one after another and upload them? > > >> > > >> I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell

apart

> > >> explanations which happens within an special group dynamic

process.

If > > >> this > > >> has occured, he would not have written this in his blog. > > >> > > >> h > > >> Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > > >> > > >> Hoi, > > >>> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high?? > > >>> > > >>> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ... > > >>> > > >>> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how

will

> > that > > >>> be > > >>> in everyone's benefit?? > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Gerard > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <

tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net

> >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Ziko van Dijk wrote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian",

said > > in > > >>>> > > >>>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any

substantiate

> > >>>>> criticism... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was

made

> > during > > >>>> a > > >>>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the > > minutes > > >>>> on > > >>>> Meta). > > >>>> > > >>>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to

the

> > fact > > >>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that > workshop; > > >>>> I'm > > >>>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who

that

> person > >>>> is. > >>>> > >>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that

such a

> >>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in

passing"; > > >>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between > some > > >>>> chapters and their respective communities. > > >>>> > > >>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows

better

> > >>>> what's > > >>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from,

I'm

not

>>>> sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tomasz >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 >>> Wikimedia-l(a)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 > >> Wikimedia-l(a)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 > > Wikimedia-l(a)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 > > Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Carlos M. Colina

7 Apr 7 Apr

9:31 p.m.

I don't find it "deeply disturbing". What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians? Let her air her thoughts. Or has that also become forbidden? M. El 07/04/2014 12:16 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:

Ziko van Dijk wrote

I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism...

Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta). That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is. I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities. Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure. Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve

Reply

Tomasz W. Kozlowski

9:36 p.m.

Carlos M. Colina wrote:

I don't find it "deeply disturbing". What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?

Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need that useless bunch of moaning robots! Tomasz

Reply

Carlos M. Colina

9:38 p.m.

Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You guys are overreacting over it. M. El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:

Carlos M. Colina wrote:

I don't find it "deeply disturbing". What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?

Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need that useless bunch of moaning robots! Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve

Reply

Michael Peel

9:40 p.m.

I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here? Thanks, Mike On 7 Apr 2014, at 22:38, Carlos M. Colina <maorx(a)wikimedia.org.ve> wrote:

Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You guys are overreacting over it. M. El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:

Carlos M. Colina wrote:

I don't find it "deeply disturbing". What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?

Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need that useless bunch of moaning robots! Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

David Gerard

10:04 p.m.

On 7 April 2014 22:40, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?

This year, Fae and Russavia. - d.

Reply

Liam Wyatt

10:38 p.m.

On Tuesday, 8 April 2014, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote: What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?

There used to be intelligent conversation on wikimedia-l? As I remember

it foundation-l was always famous for a seemingly endless supply of controversy (mostly hyperbole), conspiracy, pedantry and he-said-she-said petty attacks. I don't think there ever was a 'good old days', only the protagonists change. Unless that was the point you were actually making? :-) -- wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata

Reply

Craig Franklin

11:16 a.m.

I agree with Ziko's point entirely here. The two people who have taken part in this discussion so far who were present at the time have not given anything to indicate it was more than a flippant remark made in a stressful situation. Not that I agree with the sentiment of course, but I'm glad that at this meeting a wide variety of views were obviously put forward and robustly discussed. I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to be so anodyne, colourless, and always "on message" that the occasional "spirited" remark results in the Spanish Inquisition? Certainly, I would understand why the person that make the remark might decline to come forward given the relentless hounding that will inevitably occur. It seems to me that what is being asked for by some is more than can be reasonably expected from a human being. Personally, speaking as a Wikimedia donor and a member of the community, I prefer to be lead by fallible human beings rather than robots. Cheers, Craig On 7 April 2014 19:46, Ziko van Dijk <vandijk(a)wmnederland.nl> wrote:

Hello, I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism... Kind regards Ziko Am Montag, 7. April 2014 schrieb Fred Bauder :

Once the money an organization obtain from grants out matches anything they get from anywhere else they become autonomous. "Community support" just becomes a box to check. Fred

This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a "prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters" as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen PrÃ¶ÃŸdorf, as saying: "if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities" and "Fuck the community, who cares." I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * <

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-02/News_…

* <

http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von…

Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>

?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> ?subject=unsubscribe>

-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ziko van Dijk Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://wikimedia.nl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

Federico Leva (Nemo)

2:52 p.m.

Craig Franklin, 07/04/2014 13:16:

I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to be so anodyne, colourless, and always "on message" that the occasional "spirited" remark results in the Spanish Inquisition?

Dunno, but... reminds me of a certain recent event at Mozilla. https://brionv.com/log/2014/04/05/people-should-be-allowed-to-be-wrong/ Nemo

Reply

Steffen Prößdorf

3:19 p.m.

Dear all, I beg your pardon, that I have quoted this statement in my blog. As mentioned before, I had never intended to condemn anyone or even expose. It served me merely to illustrate the various points of view. The fact that this statement was highly exaggerated and was expressed in a moment of excitement, should be clear for each by now. Relating to the terms of the previously agreed-upon rules for this workshop *("You are OK to use and share the knowledge you gain, but not to make confidential details public. So you can say afterwards "I know a chapter had X problem and this is what they did and it did/didn't work". But it would not be OK to post on an email list afterwards "I heard Wikimedia XX had a treasurer called Joe Bloggs who stole all their money - what a bunch of idiots".")* [1] I thought it was OK this way. I suppose I should have been even more carefully. Regards, Steffen [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Informa… 2014-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>om>:

Craig Franklin, 07/04/2014 13:16: I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to

be so anodyne, colourless, and always "on message" that the occasional "spirited" remark results in the Spanish Inquisition?

Dunno, but... reminds me of a certain recent event at Mozilla. https://brionv.com/log/2014/04/05/people-should-be-allowed-to-be-wrong/ Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- Steffen Prößdorf Treasurer, member of the board Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge http://wikimedia.de Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.

Reply

Tom Morris

8 Apr 8 Apr

8:58 a.m.

Ziko van Dijk wrote:

I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism...

I've said "fuck the community" a fair few times. And "fuck the foundation" and "fuck chapter [name]". Generally, all of them under my breath and without being reported on in the Signpost. In fact, this whole thread is making me say things like “why the hell am I still subscribed to this increasingly pointless mailing list?” Storms in teacups, mountains out of molehills, wikidramas out of off-the-cuff remarks. Is there not an encyclopedia that needs editing? -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/>

Reply

Chris Keating

7 Apr 7 Apr

9:51 a.m.

As one of the organisers of the workshop, I feel I ought to chime in here. If I remember correctly, those remarks were made as a passing comment in a very emotional session about the role of movement organisations. I don't believe anyone present took them to heart. Indeed, the vast majority of people at the workshop were Wikimedians who'd recently been elected to Chapter boards, who have strong roots in the community and are starting to get to grips with how to run an organisation! I'd certainly suggest people read Steffen's blog post (even if through google translate) or indeed the minutes of the workshop, for a bit more context; http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was-ist-der-zweck-von… https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Minutes Regards, Chris On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net

wrote:

This week's issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost delivers mildly shocking news about the opinion of a "prominent female Wikimedian (...) about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters" as expressed during the Boards training workshop that took place between March 1-2 in London. The Wikimedian is quoted by the treasurer of Wikimedia Deutschland, Steffen Prößdorf, as saying: "if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities" and "Fuck the community, who cares." I understand that the identity of the person will remain secret, given that there is no public list of attendees of the workshop, so let me just say that the idea that chapters can "fuck the community" is absolutely unacceptable and should by rejected by all chapters immediately. Read more at: * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_ Signpost/2014-04-02/News_and_notes> * <http://steproe.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/die-sinnfrage-was- ist-der-zweck-von-wikimedia-deutschland/> Tomasz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply

3670

days inactive

3672

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

39 comments

24 participants

tags (0)

participants (24)

Balázs Viczián
Bence Damokos
Carlos M. Colina
Chris Keating
Christophe Henner
Craig Franklin
David Gerard
Federico Leva (Nemo)
Fred Bauder
Fæ
Gerard Meijssen
Hubert Laska
Jan-Bart de Vreede
Jane Darnell
Johan Jönsson
Liam Wyatt
Martijn Hoekstra
Michael Maggs
Michael Peel
Russavia
Steffen Prößdorf
Tom Morris
Tomasz W. Kozlowski
Ziko van Dijk