Hello,

Without ever being standardized or including age, there is a social tradition called the "Friendly space policy" adopted by many Wikimedia events. Here is one instance: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy

The idea is that in-person Wikimedia events should be safe and welcoming to everyone. It does not mention age in this iteration.

In practice, this policy and derivations have been used to promote positive behavioral norms in imitation of those developed by Western diversity training and sensitivity training traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_training

I would like for the "Friendly space policy" to continue to be developed into a short, easy-to-read behavioral guideline which can be adopted by anyone for in-person events and which guide online behavior. I would like for policies like that child protection policy to serve as more nuanced backing of the intent of the friendly space policy.

I favor development of best practices not only for the sake of the Wikimedia community, but also to set standards which can be adopted by other groups. Developing these kinds of policies has proven to be a lot more complicated than anyone anticipated but I think our community is positioned to come to consensus about what suits many people.

With regard to the child protection policy - beyond connecting that to a friendly space policy, I wish that there could be some kind of support for harassment of people in any context. I would like for some minimal plan to be made to receive harassment complaints of any kind then to refer people to whatever services are available, or to tell them that no services are available. For my own interests I wanted this with regard to LGBT related harassment on Wikipedia, but I know that harassment of women is also a problem, and if we develop a youth policy then I think it would be useful to combine all the concerns of the stakeholders into one place in which anyone can present their report and have it considered, whatever that means.

yours,

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:

On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

...

Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection

Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed?

I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements.

Thanks! ,Wil

English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection

The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time.

Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I suppose the caveat would be that what actually happens may be *broader* than the policy suggests, if anything (eg deleting personal information on a pre-emptive basis)

On the English Wikipedia, see also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children%27s_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents

In addition to the English Wikipedia policy, note that there's versions on four other wikis, as well. Catalan notes that theirs was "adaptat de l'anglesa i de Commons", so probably close in general content, and judging by the dates on them I suspect the others had a similar source, but you may want to check this.

The Commons policy is at:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection

- also adapted from enwiki but marked as 'proposed'.

There's a policy also marked as "proposed" on meta, dating from 2010; however, as it quotes the terms of service, I think we can reasonably conclude that the content does have the force of policy despite this tag :-)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Child_protection

The Wikimedia-wide terms of use were formally codified in 2012 (there had been ToU before then, but they mostly dealt with copyright issues) and do include relevant material in Section 4. But I know this has been a topic raised on many occasions well before 2010-2012...

Andrew.

On 23 May 2014 18:34, George William Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:

On May 23, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

...

Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection

Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed?

I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements.

Thanks! ,Wil

English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection

The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time.

Risker/Anne

Right.

I can guarantee you that the policy more or less as written will be implemented by most senior experienced admins. It documented existing very poorly publicized informal practice in that regard.

There is and has been much controversy as to whether it's good, fair, reasonable, appropriate.

As with the responding to threats of harm essay (originally responding to threats of suicide, now expanded), there were considerable theory based top down discussions that did not resolve, followed by someone documenting what was actually being done most of the time and that settling is as precedent.

This is perhaps not the best process. However, even in the absence of total community support on these issues, admins and arbcom and senior community members will act to protect individual people and the community and encyclopedia and foundation. It seems to be agreed that documenting usual parameters for that, so people understand the usual responses, was a net positive.

-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com

Sent from Kangphone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

This is really helpful.

To clarify:

Is it correct that each project/subdomain of Wikipedia and Wikimedia has its own, potentially unique Child Protection Policy? How many of those policies are marked as "Proposed"? Are the "Proposed" policies enforced? Are there projects/subdomains of Wikipedia and Wikimedia that have no Child Protection Policy at all?

I'll follow up on the issue of harassment policy in another thread, since it seems like Child Protection Policy has been addressed specifically with its own policies.

Thanks, all! ,Wil

Hi Will,

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines for how policies on Wikipedia "work". The Terms of Service Federico pointed at are probably "different", but I don't know how different.

--Martijn

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:

...

I suppose the caveat would be that what actually happens may be *broader* than the policy suggests, if anything (eg deleting personal information on a pre-emptive basis)

On the English Wikipedia, see also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children%27s_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents

In addition to the English Wikipedia policy, note that there's versions on four other wikis, as well. Catalan notes that theirs was "adaptat de l'anglesa i de Commons", so probably close in general content, and judging by the dates on them I suspect the others had a similar source, but you may want to check this.

The Commons policy is at:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection

• also adapted from enwiki but marked as 'proposed'.

There's a policy also marked as "proposed" on meta, dating from 2010; however, as it quotes the terms of service, I think we can reasonably conclude that the content does have the force of policy despite this tag :-)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Child_protection

The Wikimedia-wide terms of use were formally codified in 2012 (there had been ToU before then, but they mostly dealt with copyright issues) and do include relevant material in Section 4. But I know this has been a topic raised on many occasions well before 2010-2012...

Andrew.

On 23 May 2014 18:34, George William Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

On May 23, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

...

Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection

Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining to child protection that I might have missed?

I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has comments beyond links to current policy statements.

Thanks! ,Wil

English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection

The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated

debate

...

...

...

since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time.

Risker/Anne

Right.

I can guarantee you that the policy more or less as written will be

implemented by most senior experienced admins. It documented existing very poorly publicized informal practice in that regard.

...

...

There is and has been much controversy as to whether it's good, fair,

reasonable, appropriate.

...

...

As with the responding to threats of harm essay (originally responding

to threats of suicide, now expanded), there were considerable theory based top down discussions that did not resolve, followed by someone documenting what was actually being done most of the time and that settling is as precedent.

...

...

This is perhaps not the best process. However, even in the absence of

total community support on these issues, admins and arbcom and senior community members will act to protect individual people and the community and encyclopedia and foundation. It seems to be agreed that documenting usual parameters for that, so people understand the usual responses, was a net positive.

...

...

-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com

Sent from Kangphone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

...

...

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

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

...

--

• Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

...

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

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

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

On 23 May 2014 19:23, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

...

Is it correct that each project/subdomain of Wikipedia and Wikimedia has its own, potentially unique Child Protection Policy?

No. The meta policy at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities applies to all projects and so where a local policy may exist, it must implement the meta policy.

Thanks for the link.

If you intend to focus discussion in one place, rather than on multiple projects, email lists and on non-wikimedia managed websites at the same time, then meta would probably be a sensible place to summarize or ask for a community consensus. As has been explained, this has been done before, and one learning point was that by having multiple channels, drama or even excitement may be created, but any potentially good ideas for improvement are *far* more likely to drain away in the sand and result in continued general dissatisfaction and frustration.

People can obviously discuss whether the policies are optimal and/or sufficient, but I'm just asking what the current policies are. Since I started the discussion here and no one seems interested in drama, it sounds like the thread should be continued here. Sorry if I didn't post to the most appropriate list; I'm a newbie.

,Wil

Wil, no need to apologize -- nobody accused you of doing anything wrong, just pointed out the likely consequences of certain approaches. But I do think it's very likely that, given your strong connection to the Wikimedia Foundation, your choice to engage extensively at the Wikipediaocracy site will continue to generate a great deal of interest and curiosity.You may consider yourself a newbie, but you also have higher than normal access to information about Wikimedia, and -- like it or not -- your actions will surely be received by some as providing a window into how the Wikimedia Foundation is building its understanding of its community.

Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.

I'd love to explain why I participate on Wikipediocracy, as well as on the Wikimedia projects. I've already explained it to the WO folks. If you guys are interested, feel free to start another thread asking me about it. It's OT for this thread, however.

,Wil

OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?

Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.

I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard. And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in both environments.

The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums. I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say? The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)

Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531. Maybe it would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same question to understand the greatest concerns in this community.

Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere. Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that. Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am.

I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to ignore me.

,Wil

Wil Sinclair, 24/05/2014 01:06:

If you're concerned about whether I'm getting accurate information,

Not really. Generally people are concerned about a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian; 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or irrelevant issues.

Nemo

I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the projects.

Wil - the aversion to Wikipediocracy doesn't come from the mocking or trash talking. You haven't experienced the history of that site (and its predecessor) or the regular crowd there. Many of them are perfectly fine. Some of them have done some pretty seriously fucked up things, and some others have made themselves a persistent nuisance for no better reason than that they can. They have certainly exposed some major scandals, and brought insightful commentary to knotty problems. But please understand that those who choose to avoid them aren't simply too thin-skinned to take a critical comment or a bit of strong language.

Lastly, standard Internet comment on free speech: Your legal right to free speech is not a protection against criticism or a limit in any other way on what others can say to or about you.

~Nathan

Wil Sinclair wrote:

...

I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the projects.

Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues.

Hi.

From the interactions I've observed, you (Wil) are too smart to be doing

what you're doing, which makes some of your behavior all the more worrying.

You're willfully ignoring the consequences (real and potential) of your actions. I'm worried about what it says when you have 18 posts to wikimedia-l this month and your partner has one. I'm not even sure she's subscribed to this mailing list, a big official forum, much less registered and actively posting in forums such as Wikipediocracy. But you are.

Even if you had no connection to Lila, what would you or anyone else around here think about a contributor who suddenly starts wanting to get involved and is immediately posting to Wikipediocracy and poking around child protection issues (one of the most sensitive issues in the community)? People are obviously going to be wary of someone like this.

Wikimedia is about creating free educational content. I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wllm and I see you have fewer than 50 edits to articles, and the last two are (minor) edits to your partner's article. I'm pretty worried about what that says.

I'm not sure you're someone who wants to be involved in Wikimedia. Not yet, anyway. There's a concern that you're simply someone whose partner just got a job as the head of the Wikimedia Foundation and you want to dig into the drama and other juicy parts. There's a concern that you're not here to contribute Wiktionary entries or Wikisource transcriptions or Wikipedia articles or other free educational content. Or perhaps put another way, you have 110 posts to Wikipediocracy and you've been registered there since May 2014. Meanwhile you have 79 total edits to the English Wikipedia and you've been registered there since July 2006. This is absolutely not a means of wiki-dick measuring or editcountitis, I'm just looking at what you've been saying versus what you've been doing and how it might affect both perceptions and the future reality.

These issues are swirling around in my head. Wikimedia is unusual, I realize, but nowadays every time I hear about someone's partner getting (overly) involved in that someone's work, I can't help but think of both GitHub and its recent issues (real-life) and the relationship on "House of Cards" (fiction). Real life and popular culture have their influence on us, of course. :-)

Both of these (GitHub + "House of Cards") are obviously very extreme examples, but given your (Wil) recent hyper-involvement, the juxtaposition of it with your partner's lack of involvement, your on-wiki track record (few substantive edits or involvement... and you've been editing your partner's article?), and your off-wiki track record (Wikipediocracy and here), I can't help but wonder what your role is here. I'm not sure the Wikimedia Foundation has ever had or ever should have a consort.

Are you acting as a surrogate for your partner in forums that she doesn't have time or inclination to participate in herself? Is this a good cop/bad cop type of situation? I'm still not sure what to think. I imagine there members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees that also still aren't sure what to think. I hope the Board is paying close attention.

You seem to be fairly self-aware and proactive about combating the notion that you have any influence over the Wikimedia Foundation, while simultaneously wishing ("I'm a father and I want my kid...") to someday make big changes to Wikimedia and its policies. It's a mixed bag around here. It's very difficult to tell if you'll be a blessing or a curse.

I've read your replies and I understand what you're saying (succinctly summarized by you as ",Wil!=Lila&&Wil!=WMF"), but what you're saying and what your actions are saying seem to be in contrast. If you want to get involved with Wikimedia, by all means, that would be great. But getting involved means contributing to free educational content and the surrounding movement. All you have to do is be bold and just click edit, as they say. Until then, there will be a sizable contingency watching and waiting for what will come of the decision to appoint your partner as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation and what her role and yours mean to the future of Wikimedia.

MZMcBride

MZMcBride wrote:

I've read your replies and I understand what you're saying (succinctly summarized by you as ",Wil!=Lila&&Wil!=WMF"), but what you're saying and what your actions are saying seem to be in contrast. If you want to get involved with Wikimedia, by all means, that would be great. But getting involved means contributing to free educational content and the surrounding movement. All you have to do is be bold and just click edit, as they say. Until then, there will be a sizable contingency watching and waiting for what will come of the decision to appoint your partner as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation and what her role and yours mean to the future of Wikimedia.

If nothing else, this mailing list thread can serve to teach me that I wanted "contingent" there, not "contingency".

I also used "hierarchal" instead of "hierarchical" this month before re-realizing that even though "hierarchal" is a real word and won't be marked as a misspelling, it's still not the word I want. English is cruel.

MZMcBride

If this were true, then Wil could have taken part in discussion on Wikipediocracy with a throw-away anonymous account to educate himself on the culture there. I am sure that Wil and Lila know how to keep an internet account anonymous, or they can ask someone on their personal network who does know.

To parody a little, but not much, "Hello, I'm the partner of the new CEO of the WMF and I would like to ask you about what you think of the WMF projects... Oh, please pretend that I have nothing to do with the CEO of the WMF." No, that just does not add up.

What would happen if I didn't say it? I'd probably be considered deceitful for *not* telling people upfront. :) It's worked pretty well to tell people what they believe they need to know about me from the get-go and then convince them that I'm my own person with my words and actions. I can also see some arguments for your approach, however.

As someone partial, due to the actions of some participants of 'that website' to deride my life as a gay man, my view is that Lila is actively losing good faith, before she has managed to deliver anything for our movement, by not having a word with her partner to stop him playing silly and potentially destructive games using her name as if he were the charitable "First husband" playing ambassador.

Could you please tell me more about any potentially homophobic comments that have been made on Wikipediocracy? Here or by email, whichever you think is most appropriate. My email is wllm@wllm.com. I want no part of any site that practices bigotry.

I think we can settle the whole "'First husband' playing ambassador" thing. I'm not an ambassador for anybody. I am a person who values his individuality. I think that's pretty common in the WP community. In fact, I'm not even legally Lila's husband, so technically I'm not First anything. :) And that's a-ok with me. I just ask for a chance to show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me that chance?

Wil has a right to free speech (in the UK we have similar law, it amounts to "meh, you are free to make an arse out yourself"). This ensures his right to be free to irretrievably cock up Lila's reputation in the eyes of the Wikimedia community's most active and productive volunteers.

If the larger WP community believes that my actions and words should be weighed heavily on Lila as an ED, then that's not about me or anything I have done. That's about what the community believes makes for a great leader. I personally think that such an attitude would be a great injustice to one of the greatest leaders the WMF could hope to find. But if this is really the way the WP community works, then I think each and every one reading this should ask themselves: "Is this the kind of community I want?"

If Lila is going to be good at managing politics within our movement, now would be an excellent time to start demonstrating it, rather than pretending she does not know about the games Wil is playing within the Wikimedia movement that she is being handsomely paid to support.

I don't know about Lila, but I think a lot of Wikipedians are pretty much done with the politics. They seem to be more interested in spending their time working on Wikipedia itself.

Thanks much for the feedback, tho. I'd really appreciate it if you could get back to me about any prejudice you've encountered here or on WO. I think it goes without saying that this is definitely *not* something we want anywhere in our community. ,Wil

...

I just ask for a chance to show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me that chance?

...

Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons, and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying to help achieve the aims of our projects.

OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with you if I do audio instead of photos or videos?

At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila were hoping for.

FWIW, her title is Executive Director, not CEO. Honestly, I'm less worried about the impression I'm giving you than your getting to know the real me. I'm very much looking forward to that.

,Wil

Not really. Generally people are concerned about a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian; 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or irrelevant issues.

Nemo

Hi Nemo, thanks for the feedback!

RE: 2) I'm not sure what you mean by "people." Has this been discussed elsewhere? I doubt that everyone on this list shares your viewpoint on these issues. Is it a particular group that you're referring to?

RE: a) I haven't heard your full perspective on Wikipediocracy, and I'd like to hear more. I honestly don't know if this is the right forum to discuss it or not. Do you know of a better one? Would you rather take this offline? Generally speaking, I prefer to discuss things in forums where others can benefit.

In any case, please help inform me one way or another. Talk to you soon.

,Wil

I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the project. Wikipediocracy is where people go to gossip and troll, particularly if they are banned and thus can't participate on Wikipedia anymore. If you're really interested in Wikipedia culture, Wikipedia is still a pretty large, rambling, and open conversation space where you can meet actual contributors. ;-)

Steven

Hi Steven. Yes, I'm trying to get more involved in all the projects. Frankly, there's a lot more to read and get checked off since the last time I contributed. :)

Have you gone to Wikipediocracy lately? There was a thread where they asked who has been banned or indef blocked, and I believe something like 2/3 of the people who replied were editors in good standing. In fact, some of the more active users on this list and well respected members of the community are also active on WO.

I'm not suggesting that people on this list should get active on WO. The trash talk is not for the faint-of-heart. I actually wish that many of the issues they discuss over there were discussed more over here; I have looked in to many of them using secondary sources (usually on WP itself), and they seem to be very valid concerns with suggestions that may help address- or at least start a discussion about- some of the biggest challenges facing WP. I can post the list of concerns (without the trash talk, of course) that we've put together on WO in this forum, if that would help you get a better idea of what is going on over there.

Would you like to help me get to know more about the community? My talk page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wllm; we can talk more about newb stuff over there.

Thanks! ,Wil

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active wikipediocracy memeber?

Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the question that who asked it.

You know where 4chan is I assume.

No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it?

Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text)

I agree this is a bit confusing. I don't mean it in a legal sense- which one might well argue that's the only sense it has- but in a more social sense. I ask that if you don't like what I'm doing or saying, that you take it out on me by excising your own right to free speech by criticizing me, my actions, and my words- not on Lila through WP politics.

Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. We are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by thousands of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against whatever the internet can throw at them.

Yeap. It's my opinion. And I also think that Wikipedia is an amazing achievement. Congrats and thanks to all of you!

Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement?

Sorry, what do you mean by "breath interaction"?

Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that "I'm just asking what the current policies are." lack a certain credibility.

Ah. Sorry. I was referring to the questions I asked on this list. After discussing it there, I wanted to figure out what the current policies were from the source. It was pretty hard to track down everything on WP and WM, so thanks everyone for all the links! Do you have the link to that thread? Maybe we should post it so that people can see what you're talking about.

The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives.

Are you saying that I should discuss it there instead?

I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to free speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and your government.

Sure. I may not have used the right word. My apologies. I meant, please don't hold my words and actions against Lila in any way. Feel free to hold me to them, tho. :)

This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't for getting to know people.

Ah. I guess I'll look for other places to get to know people. I'm really sorry to have bothered you here.

Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that can't be dealt with through the usual project level channels.

Yeah. It sounds like I really just barged in to the wrong place. Doh!

So not an editor?

Actually, I'm editing some. I'm about to publish an article about the modular sofa in the WMF office. It happens to be among my favorite furniture designs, and now I've got a great pic to use in the article. In addition, I plan to add some audio loops that I have made over the years doing electronic music to Commons. It would be really cool for people to have completely free loops to use in applications like Garage Band and FL Studio. Stay tuned!

I guess I'll see y'all around somewhere else. ,Wil

On 05/23/2014 07:06 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:

I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.

I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some day).

Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects. On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the movement's gaffes.

This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear to the ground" as it were.

The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in the projects.

(And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of "private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on those sites).

The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation, concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect you.

Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but that's a side effect of their effort to dig up "dirt" to throw at their enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach "mainstream" venues soon enough if it was legitimate.

So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a very bad idea.

-- Marc

Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten under his skin...

What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they "fire" him?? Some job they'd be walking into!

Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years' experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the "grease the squeakiest wheel" approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple years.

Pete

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

...

I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some day).

Thanks. I appreciate any advice.

...

Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects. On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the movement's gaffes.

I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd like to find out as much as I can about the movement.

...

This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear to the ground" as it were.

The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in the projects.

Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution, but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there, too, for the reasons you've mentioned above.

...

(And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of "private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on those sites).

Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the members further questions about potential threats to my family once Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have you ever been on those boards?

...

The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation, concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect you.

Well, we'll have to see how I fare. It certainly hasn't bothered me so far. For that matter, some of the less-than-friendly responses on this list haven't bothered me either. I've been told many times that I'm persistently positive. ;)

...

Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but that's a side effect of their effort to dig up "dirt" to throw at their enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach "mainstream" venues soon enough if it was legitimate.

But what if this problem weren't discovered and fixed? Couldn't it turn in to a larger problem down the road? If we all work on our problems in good faith, a few inevitable mistakes like we've seen in the past won't matter; the positive news should far outweigh the negative.

...

So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a very bad idea.

-- Marc

Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to participate there, because it happens to work for me. I realize it's not for everyone. For example, with all the trash talking on there, it certainly isn't for Lila. As I've mentioned, we are two *very* different people. I'm looking forward to working with you on WP, tho. I'll try to drop by your talk page to say Hi soon. Ta's!

,Wil

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.

If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology. Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.

Best. ,Wil

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten under his skin...

What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they "fire" him?? Some job they'd be walking into!

Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years' experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the "grease the squeakiest wheel" approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple years.

Pete

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

...

...

I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some day).

Thanks. I appreciate any advice.

...

Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects. On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the movement's gaffes.

I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd like to find out as much as I can about the movement.

...

This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear to the ground" as it were.

The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in the projects.

Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution, but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there, too, for the reasons you've mentioned above.

...

(And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of "private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on those sites).

Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the members further questions about potential threats to my family once Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have you ever been on those boards?

...

The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation, concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect you.

Well, we'll have to see how I fare. It certainly hasn't bothered me so far. For that matter, some of the less-than-friendly responses on this list haven't bothered me either. I've been told many times that I'm persistently positive. ;)

...

Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but that's a side effect of their effort to dig up "dirt" to throw at their enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach "mainstream" venues soon enough if it was legitimate.

But what if this problem weren't discovered and fixed? Couldn't it turn in to a larger problem down the road? If we all work on our problems in good faith, a few inevitable mistakes like we've seen in the past won't matter; the positive news should far outweigh the negative.

...

So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a very bad idea.

-- Marc

Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to participate there, because it happens to work for me. I realize it's not for everyone. For example, with all the trash talking on there, it certainly isn't for Lila. As I've mentioned, we are two *very* different people. I'm looking forward to working with you on WP, tho. I'll try to drop by your talk page to say Hi soon. Ta's!

,Wil

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Craig, I was trying to be kind. If you consider that a threat, then I apologize to you, Pete, and the whole list.

I think at this point words have served us about as well as they ever will. Some of you don't like the fact that I've participated on Wikipediocracy. Others are uncomfortable because the incoming ED has a partner who is active in the community, and that is a new thing. Still others would like to see less of me and more of Lila. All reasonable concerns.

I suggest we set the words aside for the time being and start letting our actions speak for themselves.

Best. ,Wil

On Fri May 23 23:06:32 UTC 2014 Wil Sinclair wrote: The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.

On Sat May 24 21:33:07 UTC 2014 David Gerard wrote: It's a festering pit of spammers, trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way.

On 24 May 2014 08:24, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.

If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology. Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.

Best. ,Wil

Hey what happened to disclaiming any relevant link between the two of you? Not exactly consistent with you canvasing for an apology on her behalf. Of course it is somewhat alarming that you are suggesting that our new ED can't handle robust criticism but I personally prefer to trust the judgment of the board and other involved parties.

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

If that was not for public eyes,

All: My last message to the list was indeed intended for a specific individual, not the list. But there's nothing in it I want to back away from, it's an accurate reflection of my (still evolving) views.

Wil, on the propriety of talking behind your back: I don't think I did anything wrong here. If we had a relationship, I'd probably have reached out to you, to make sure I understood you right or to try to persuade you to change your behavior, before talking to others. But we haven't spoken before, and I have no reason to think that would have a worthwhile outcome. I'm pretty confident that there are dozens -- no, hundreds -- of opinions forming in the heads and conversations of the various people who read this list, and I'm pretty sure that is entirely appropriate. Would you want a personal message about every one of them? You'd have a lot of reading to do.

Also, you asked about the first line. I was referring to the American TV show The West Wing (early 7th season). It wasn't in response to anything in this email thread though, or anything that's happened on this list recently.

Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.

Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 02:31:32 UTC 2014

...

the criticism there has led to exposing **serious problems that

desperately needed fixing**,

Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 15:00:31 UTC 2014

...

By their obsession over **nits**

Which?

...

increasing PR manipulation

This has been a consistent focus for WO and its predecessor for several years. There is a whole sub-forum devoted to this problem.

...

Given that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable

Again, this is a claim about psychological states that you need to justify.

...

you were simply aping one of their calls for war. Coming from most

anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling

You mean concerns about child protection?

On 05/24/2014 11:13 AM, edward wrote:

Also this complaint http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one.

There are issues indeed about who is supposed to handle what aspect of the matter; with opinions diverging about respective roles of various participants. WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't even actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered anything significant on the matter.

Of course, taking anything out of context can make any issue look disproportionally important or significant; not unlike how by selectively misquoting my previous email you made it seem like I was holding a position I was not in order to attack it.

-- Marc

On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:

You mean "selectively quoting"? I was not aware of misquoting you. I used your very words.

Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then. I could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments is, necessarily, "misquoting" but this was a simple production error -- having both 'selectively quoting' and 'misquoting' in mind I ended up writing halfway between both.

-- Marc

Marc,

I am sure you are aware of the discussion here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection

Those concerns were raised not by banned trolls, but by members of the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, and other users with advanced permissions. They were raised over a year ago, and as far as I am aware, the situation is unchanged.

You said earlier,

"In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach 'mainstream' venues soon enough if it was legitimate."

In a sense you're right: this was brought up by mainstream players, in a mainstream locale: Sue's talk page. However, the fact of the matter is that *nothing has been done to address the concern*.

You say, "WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't even actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered anything significant on the matter".

You may remember the case on Commons of Beta-M, a man who newspapers reported was jailed in the US for distribution of child pornography and deported, and who subsequently took on a key role as a curator of adult content on Commons. He also left messages on dozens of Commons user talk pages inviting them to send him nude pictures of themselves for use on his private website. He was eventually removed from Wikimedia projects by WMF office action – one of very few of this kind ever taken – against the will of the Commons community.

The sole reason for the office action was that the matter of his prior conviction was brought up by WR/WO critics. I have no doubt that he would have carried on much as before otherwise.

Another self-described pedophile recently offered nude pictures of his wife to Commons, as discussed on this mailing list a few days ago. At one point, he was trying to re-write the child protection policy on Meta, a fact which was brought up on Geoff Brigham's user talk page on Meta.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Leucosticte

He is still free to contribute to Wikimedia projects, despite a number of people now having raised his contributions as problematic.

The recent terms-of-use change proposal to address paid editing came in the wake of reporting on Wiki-PR's sockpuppet army by the Daily Dot.

The situation had been festering on-wiki for months. One longstanding bureaucrat resigned over it.

Qworty contributed for over half a decade. What complaints there were about him over the years never led to action, until a journalist wrote an exposé of him.

I do not see self-regulation working effectively. Sometimes, outside criticism is vital, as it is for *any organisation in society*. In that sense, I see our effort as making a productive contribution.

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:

Hello again, Wil.

It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place to do so. But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to not answer:

On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:

...

If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are?

Because their priorities are out of whack. By their obsession over nits and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing...

Over and before the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much more *important* things that need fixing that are plain for everyone to see but just don't happen to be usable as weapons against others. (Systemic bias, participation by women, the changing editor landscape, increasing PR manipulation... I could go on all day).

Also, they harp repeatedly on the same points over and over that have been "asked and answered" by the community, the discussion of which has repeatedly shown to be both unproductive and cause for strife. Given that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable -- but that's not a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wants to be a productive participant in the movement.

Case in point is their obsession with imagining that the project are replete with pedophiles and pedophile-enablers, focusing on what they hallucinate is a lack of diligence in handling the matter because we do so discretely.

So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.

Like it or not, you are the spouse of the most visible person of the movement and what you do will always be associated with what Lila does. Imagine a little what your reaction would be if the spouse of your local chief of police was publicly socializing with known gang members?

Yes, you are your own person -- but you do not live in isolation and the motives of who you hang out with *does* matter.

-- Marc

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I haven't been participating. At times I've gained useful insights and information from things posted on those sites. In particular, they have been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention to the well-being of BLP subjects.

To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some things that take place on those sites. A few contributors there have a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their illogical extremes. The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it. The tone of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.) There is a troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued). The wholesale publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point.

As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on particular individuals.

I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila. I do suggest to Wil that a critic site should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply accepted. But I suspect that Wil understands that already.

Newyorkbrad

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

...

So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.

I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues that affect my own children.

Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about what may or may not be going on in each other's heads.

Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more on what's being said rather than who is saying it.

Thanks. ,Wil

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On 24 May 2014 22:21, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, "Newyorkbrad" newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:

...

I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila.

But is there anybody who has actually expressed that view?

I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers, trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way. en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and having to resign on his first day. (Great going, guys - that's definitely how to maintain that all-important decorum) The site exists to further bitterness and wikispamming (it's not clear which comes first; possibly both equally) and every time I'm foolish enough to look at it I feel stupider afterwards.

Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your question "what's going on?" in a sentence (or a paragraph or an essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias for fun as a kid.

I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia. Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow humans are, really.

- d.

Andreas

And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That in itself is food for thought.

And therein lies the problem.

In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO forums on an issue in which I wasn't involved, and then proceded to close an AfD as if he was an uninvolved admin/bureaucrat.

28bytes is as a dishonest person who you will ever come across, and he "outed" himself only after seeing the "secret" subforum where he saw he was going to be outed by you guys.

And you want to hold him as an example of a shining example of WO membership, seriously?

Russavia

Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your question "what's going on?" in a sentence (or a paragraph or an essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias for fun as a kid.

I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia. Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow humans are, really.

Thanks, David, and I agree 100% that there's a lot that I can only learn by participating. That's one reason I'm here. :) I've also been uploading sound loops to Commons, and I'm working on a few new articles on various pet interests of mine. I think the one thing left that Fae suggested I do is edit a BLP, IIRC. I know that there has been some discussion about how to handle BLP's here and on WO. These particular issues seem much harder to grok without some experience, so I think Fae was on-point when he suggested I just dive right in.

I've also learned a lot from Wikipediocracy, but YMMV. :)

,Wil

On 25/05/2014 12:16, David Gerard wrote:

...

The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community

members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is actually making the world a better place, dot by dot.

Remember that criticism also makes the world a better place. Not in that happy-clappy inane smile kind of way, but, simply, a better place.

I could give you many examples of this.

E

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

...

The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is actually making the world a better place, dot by dot.

That sounds like a faith-based statement, rather than a rational one.

If it is, then I will take faith in what David says. I'm sure everyone here would like to contribute in their own way, and we all know how hard that can get in groups. Even for small ones like this. ;)

,Wil

Wil Sinclair, 25/05/2014 02:00:

why are so many contributors, admins, and upstanding members of the WP community going there to discuss issues instead of talking through them in places like this forum?

*ding don* false dichotomy bell rings: why are so many discussing about wiki stuff on Facebook? Or in person with their family? Or or or or or?

Nemo

On 25 May 2014 17:04, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

Besides knowing for a fact that we're not discussing anything like this in our family for obvious reasons, I don't know whether they are being discussed on Facebook or elsewhere. But I do know that they are being discussed quite rigorously on Wikipediocracy.

People can even check for themselves, if they'd like: http://wikipediocracy.com

Please send me any links you have to Facebook pages, etc.

Thanks! ,Wil

Seeing the partner of the WMF ED going out of his way actively to run about on multiple public channels to support and promote Wikipediocracy, a website owned by Gregory Kohs and which is used by him to lobby his obsessive anti-Wikimedia yellow journalism, is increasingly disturbing and worrying.

It would have been great had Wil taken the advice from the most experienced long term Wikimedia volunteers and re-focused for a month or two on gaining practical experience at volunteering on Wikimedia projects, and in turn gaining the trust of fellow volunteers, before attempting to single-handedly attempt to take a lead on community politics by using the name of his parter as his calling card. Were he writing on Wikipediocracy using the benefit of that experience, then this would feel rather less like Wil taking his views from that site and immediately promoting them on Wikimedia channels.

Lila Tretikov will need to work extremely hard with the (productive) volunteer community to gain confidence in her personal judgement when it comes to holding the future strategy for the Wikimedia Community and remove the bad taste this political gaming is leaving behind. Along with the inevitable suspicion that this has been a not-very-covert ploy by Lila to jumpstart re-engineering our community.

Do any WMF Trustees have an opinion about these shenanigans by Wil, or even better, Lila?

Wil - take a break away from the keyboard, and seek some sensible advice before going yet further along the public path you are committing yourself and Lila to. At this point, I find it had to imagine any scenario where your actions this week turn out to have been a clever and wise strategy for Wikimedia.

Fae

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote: And this conversation is

getting pretty repetitive, isn't it?

Yep!

Remember that some of the harsher reactions here have more to do with WR/WO than you.

Hope the long string of uniformly negative reactions on the list haven't put you off Wikimedia or participating, though it doesn't look like it has. At least it serves as a good warning and example - this is what Wikimedians are like ;)

On 23 May 2014 19:49, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

People can obviously discuss whether the policies are optimal and/or sufficient, but I'm just asking what the current policies are.

Then stick to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

Straight "What is the policy on X" questions aren't really the purpose of this mailing list.

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:

...

Then stick to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

Straight "What is the policy on X" questions aren't really the purpose of this mailing list.

-- geni

Thanks for the advice; that's exactly the kind of thing a newbie like me could use. Also, thanks for the link; I'll read through that page. I've gotten a lot of great information here, so I'd prefer to keep this thread open if anyone else has anything to contribute.

,Wil

We don't really have a process for "closing" threads. Any thread will always be open as long as anyone wants to contribute anything.

--Martijn

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe