Pranesh,

Thanks for acknowledging that

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The-solipsist

belongs to you.

None of the community members and FDC knew about the popular existence of the user name The Solipsist and that is the reason HPN highlighted that it is a new account in Meta.

Given that your English Wikipedia user name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sol

clearly mentions your affiliation to CIS, you could have used

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

Or, you could have linked to your English Wikipedia user page.

Or, you could have at least declared your professional affiliation when HPN asked.

If you had done that, a CIS staff agreeing with the concerns / questions of the community can only add more weight to it. And when you differ with the community's view point, FDC could have judged its merit keeping in mind your professional affiliation.

Except for a single Wikipedian, there was no one else from the Wikimedia India community strongly supporting the proposal. In this context, it is important that FDC knows the affiliation of each commenter.

I request you to link both user accounts now and let us leave it to the FDC to decide if anything could be considered lobbying.

The other issues you have highlighted regarding the larger movement in India deserve to be discussed in a new thread.

A final note:

I see that many are complaining about the noise, personal attacks and trolling in this list and elsewhere.

I hope that the fact Wikipedia itself is collaboratively written irrespective of all such issues can be appreciated.

Indian Wikimedia community is a self-regulating one and it had spoken up in the past whenever appropriate to keep its dignity and integrity intact.

So let us focus on the real issues instead of viewing the community with the following attitude.

“Don’t wrestle with pigs: you’ll get all muddy and the pigs will like it"

Isn't that the quote often attributed to the Canadian-American labour union mediator Cyrus S. Ching that you were mentioning?

Strangely, this reminded me of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm#Pigs

Ravi

Hari Prasad Nadig hpnadig@gmail.com [2014-05-21 07:48:46 +0530]:

I strongly object to the attitude that you (and Gautham as well, perhaps to the same extent, on Twitter[1]) have shown in your comments when taking on the strong opposition by community members to CIS's proposal. Whatever your affiliations may be, this is no way of treating community members - whether you recognize yourself to be part of it or not.

Could you point me to one instance where I have actually treated a community member unfairly and impolitely? Would you have even a *single* instance of firm proof rather than mere insinuations of a bad "attitude"?

I further take *strong objection* to the words like "“Don’t wrestle with pigs:... " or comparison to the "Dog in the Manger" story even if it serves as "metaphor" for your perspective.

A. Could you please indicate where I have used the words you have put in quotes?

B. I don't understand what you are taking "strong objection" to.

B1. Do you strongly object to people believing that trolling is bad? Do you honestly believe that viewing trolling as a bad thing is in itself objectionable?

B2. Or do you strongly object to people believing that some of this e-mails on this list are trollish? Do you believe that every mail on this list is helpful? If you do feel there are only good and substantive contributions to this list, then I have a fundamentally different viewpoint and we will have to disagree.

B2. Or do you strongly object to metaphors? This doesn't seem to be the case, since I used a quote by Nietzsche which contained a metaphor.

B3. Or do you strongly object to metaphors involving animals of a species other than homo sapiens sapiens? Do you believe that Aesop's fables and the Jataka tales shouldn't ever be looked upon as lessons about the human condition?

B4. Or do you strongly object to those who hold viewpoints contrary to yours?

Given what you've stated, I'm unable to say which of B{1-4} is the basis of your strong objection.

I fail to understand the animosity and hostility being shown towards community members who're speaking out even if they're quite vocal about it. Some of these people have dedicated years of their lives to Wikimedia without expecting anything in return and continue to do so.

If you stepped in to curb those who *actually* display animosity and hostility on this mailing list, rather than directing your attention solely on my respectful mail, perhaps this e-mail would elicit greater respect from me.

Treat community members with respect. The lengthy rants shall then stand to get more respect and not otherwise.

I take the strongest objection to your characterisation of my measured response as a "rant". Demeaning the courteous writing of a fellow community-member and dismissing it as a "rant"[1] is no way to positively engage.

[1]: Various definitions of "rant" include: "wild or impassioned speech"; "to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger: to complain in a way that is unreasonable"; a "tirade or a diatribe".

I also take the strongest objection to any characterisation of my treatment of fellow community members as disrespectful in any manner. There is not a iota of truth in that allegation.

It is quite unsettling to hear that the anonymous id created just for the comments for FDC proposal on meta is yours. Like Ravi rightly pointed out, you should have either used your existing account to comment or made your affiliations clear before adding your comments there. You may just have ended up influencing the FDC review in an unethical way by doing so.

A. I take the strongest objection to your statement that I may have influenced the FDC review in an unethical manner. You have made that comment in a flippant manner with not a shred of evidence to to back it up; it is nothing but rank libel.

B. I cannot use a "unified account" or merge accounts, since there is another Wikipedia user (the DE Wikipedia, IIRC) who created his account before I did. If you know of a way I can, please do let me know. I would love to claim the same username across all Wikimedia portals.

C. Thank you for questioning my "ethics" alone for being "anonymous" and excluding: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AdvisoryParty https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Teri_Pettit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DiggyBaby https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seekingfbi https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OhHellYeahYes! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chaukalagaya

Two hurrahs for neutrality!

Lastly, I agree strongly with Ravi: Let us focus on real issues. In that spirit, I am no longer going to continue contributing to this thread, which only detracts from the signal-to-noise ratio. This thread is an exemplar of what I noted is my original response on this thread as my misguided hope.

Ravishankar ravidreams@gmail.com [2014-05-20 21:24:56 +0530]:

None of the community members and FDC knew about the popular existence of the user name The Solipsist and that is the reason HPN highlighted that it is a new account in Meta.

There are multiple new accounts on Meta that participated in the discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AdvisoryParty https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Teri_Pettit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DiggyBaby https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seekingfbi https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OhHellYeahYes! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chaukalagaya

Yet, mine was the only one of which HPN asked whether it was created solely for these discussions.

Or, you could have at least declared your professional affiliation when HPN asked.

HPN did not ask for my professional affiliation. He asked me if my "ID been created for just this discussion?"

And when you differ with the community's view point, FDC could have judged its merit keeping in mind your professional affiliation.

Please don't reduce a heterogeneous community into a homogeneous one which has a single view point for me to differ from. I responded to specific people's comments, agreeing and disagreeing with them; I did not differ from "the community's view point".

I request you to link both user accounts now and let us leave it to the FDC to decide if anything could be considered lobbying.

Could you please point to:

a) any intervention made by me where I have supported the CIS proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The-solipsist ; and

b) the rule that prohibits "lobbying" in the sense that you're using the word.

Thank you.

I see that many are complaining about the noise, personal attacks and trolling in this list and elsewhere.

Yes, a hostile environment created by a small minority is not good for the larger community.

I hope that the fact Wikipedia itself is collaboratively written irrespective of all such issues can be appreciated.

No, I do not appreciate the hostility on Wikipedia. The truth is there are many people who are driven away from Wikipedia's hostile environment:

From a blog post by Sue Gardner:

4. Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because they are conflict-averse and don’t like Wikipedia’s sometimes-fighty culture.

There is lots of evidence to suggest this is true.

“My research into the gender dynamics of online discussion forums found that men tend to be more adversarial, and to tolerate contentious debate, more than women,” said Susan Herring to a reporter from Discovery News. “Women, in contrast, tend to be more polite and supportive, as well as less assertive … and (they) tend to be turned off by contentiousness, and may avoid online environments that they perceive as contentious.” [7]

This assertion is supported by women themselves — both those who don’t edit Wikipedia, and those who do:

“[E]ven the idea of going on to Wikipedia and trying to edit stuff and getting into fights with dudes makes me too weary to even think about it. I spend enough of my life dealing with pompous men who didn’t get the memo that their penises don’t automatically make them smarter or more mature than any random woman.” [8]

“Wikipedia can be a fighty place, no doubt. To stick around there can require you to be willing to do the virtual equivalent of stomping on someone’s foot when they get in your face, which a lot of women, myself included, find difficult.” [9]

From a commenter on Feministing: “I agree that Wikipedia can seem hostile and cliquish. Quite simply, I am sensitive and the internet is not generally kind to sensitive people. I am not thick-skinned enough for Wikipedia.” [10]

“From the inside,” writes Justine Cassell, professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, “Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased. Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must h

ave to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one.” [11]

“I think [the gender gap] has to do with many Wikipedia editors being bullies. Women tend to take their marbles and go home instead of putting a lot of effort into something where they get slapped around. I work on biographies of obscure women writers, rather under the radar stuff… contribute to more prominent articles makes one paranoid, anyone can come along and undo your work and leave nasty messages and you get very little oversight.” [12]

“I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but finally quit because I grew tired of the “king of the mountain” attitude they have. You work your tail off on an entry for several YEARS only to have some pimply faced college kid knock it off by putting all manner of crazy stuff on there such as need for “reliable” sources when if they’d taken a moment to actually look at the reference they’d see they were perfectly reliable! I’m done with Wikipedia. It’s not only sexist but agist as well.” [13]

[7] Source: Cristen Conger, Discovery News, Is There a Gender Gap Online [8] Source: From a discussion at Pandagon titled Chronicling the Abuses [9] Source: From a discussion at Metafilter titled Wikipedia, Snips & Snails, Sugar & Spice? [10] Source: Commenter, Feministing, Quick Hit: Only 13% of Wikipedia Contributors Are Women [11] Source: Justine Cassell, New York Times, Editing Wars Behind the Scenes [12] Source: A commenter named Joyce at the NPR blog, commenting on the Eyder Peralta post Facing Serious Gender Gap, Wikipedia Vows To Add More Women Contributors [13] Source: A commenter named Sabrina at the NPR blog, commenting on the Eyder Peralta post Facing Serious Gender Gap, Wikipedia Vows To Add More Women Contributors

Research presented in Wikimania 2013 by Netha Hussain, Jadine Lannon, and others on the gender gap in the Indian Wikipedia provides further evidence in this regard.

So let us focus on the real issues instead of viewing the community with the following attitude.

One person maketh not the community and the community cannot be reduced to one person. Please do not expand the objections I took to one instance of one person's engagement as applying to the whole community.

I do also believe that one should not feed the trolls nor engage with trollish behaviour (the latter can be exhibited even by people who aren't trolls per se).

I agree with you: let us focus on the real issues.