-----Original Message----- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:gordon.joly@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:46 AM Subject: RE: [Wikimediauk-l] Editors' exclusion due to privacy
[Snip]
Two points
- You are representing the views of others, and I am not sure you
have that right. Especially since there are anonymous, and are not acting as a single body.
- Wikimedia UK is about sending money to Foundation. One of the
reasons I left (days before the legal incorporation) was that I was interested in research and education, but the Chapters are primarily (but not only) about getting the tax back on donations. I can form a charity called "Wiki Research, Education and Training Ltd" and not use the trade marks of the foundation. And I could do that in a few weeks.
It's hard to see either of those as good quality answers.
"Representing" is an unhelpful word here. To note a situation, and comment that it merits review is not the same as representing anonymous editors per se. The situation exists, and it's extremely likely that a significant number of those who would wish to be involved as members will be affected by it. Drawing attention to a problem or situation is not the same as claiming to be some form of unelected spokesperson. I've not claimed the latter; I've only spoken as someone who wishes to be involved, and can conceive that this will be a barrier for some that should be removed so that Wiki-supporters valuing online-anonymity in the UK may do so freely without avoidable exclusion.
With regard to your second point, yes you can, but you didn't, and the likelihood is others wouldn't either, for similar reasons. Realistically " in that case set up your own supporting body" is going to exclude most people too. Very few will set up a body, compared to the many who might join a pre-existing, already-organized body. In either case both Wikimedia UK and bona fide dedicated editors lose out.
To recap on the matter as in my previous comment:
Given how many UK-based editors continue to edit anonymously, the
assumption must be that a significant number of those who would wish fully to be members of Wikimedia UK and might contribute well (and wish to) as members, will avoid doing so to save their anonymity (if this is not considered carefully), and may, if limited in how much they are permitted to be involved, feel excluded. If it's unavoidable, then so be it... but it's definitely worth exploring from a point of view of "how can we help and involve them as much as possible", not just "why would they care, and why should we".
I don't think consistently looking for reasons to _justify_ exclusion/suspicion is as helpful a viewpoint as looking for ways to _support inclusion_ (so far as practical) of one's own wiki*.org peer group -- the people who actually write the reference pages which Wikimedia is intended to financially support -- and some of whom may just want to give more without feeling excluded.
To: "the contactbox"
I believe that you have forwarded a private, offlist reply to the list.
So much for privacy, eh?
Gordo
At 10:59 +0100 2/7/07, the contactbox wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:gordon.joly@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:46 AM Subject: RE: [Wikimediauk-l] Editors' exclusion due to privacy
[Snip]
Two points
- You are representing the views of others, and I am not sure you
have that right. Especially since there are anonymous, and are not acting as a single body.
- Wikimedia UK is about sending money to Foundation. One of the
reasons I left (days before the legal incorporation) was that I was interested in research and education, but the Chapters are primarily (but not only) about getting the tax back on donations. I can form a charity called "Wiki Research, Education and Training Ltd" and not use the trade marks of the foundation. And I could do that in a few weeks.
It's hard to see either of those as good quality answers.
"Representing" is an unhelpful word here. To note a situation, and comment that it merits review is not the same as representing anonymous editors per se. The situation exists, and it's extremely likely that a significant number of those who would wish to be involved as members will be affected by it. Drawing attention to a problem or situation is not the same as claiming to be some form of unelected spokesperson. I've not claimed the latter; I've only spoken as someone who wishes to be involved, and can conceive that this will be a barrier for some that should be removed so that Wiki-supporters valuing online-anonymity in the UK may do so freely without avoidable exclusion.
With regard to your second point, yes you can, but you didn't, and the likelihood is others wouldn't either, for similar reasons. Realistically " in that case set up your own supporting body" is going to exclude most people too. Very few will set up a body, compared to the many who might join a pre-existing, already-organized body. In either case both Wikimedia UK and bona fide dedicated editors lose out.
To recap on the matter as in my previous comment:
Given how many UK-based editors continue to edit anonymously, the
assumption must be that a significant number of those who would wish fully to be members of Wikimedia UK and might contribute well (and wish to) as members, will avoid doing so to save their anonymity (if this is not considered carefully), and may, if limited in how much they are permitted to be involved, feel excluded. If it's unavoidable, then so be it... but it's definitely worth exploring from a point of view of "how can we help and involve them as much as possible", not just "why would they care, and why should we".
I don't think consistently looking for reasons to _justify_ exclusion/suspicion is as helpful a viewpoint as looking for ways to _support inclusion_ (so far as practical) of one's own wiki*.org peer group -- the people who actually write the reference pages which Wikimedia is intended to financially support -- and some of whom may just want to give more without feeling excluded.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Thought it was a mistake (as indeed my own previous email was, which was accidentally replied to you only, rather than "reply all"ed).
Everything else in this thread was sent to the list. It wasn't marked private, nor stated to be private, nor was there anything secretive about it.
Apologies if you had intended for it not to be public. Next time I shall be aware that some of your views are not public.
-----Original Message----- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:gordon.joly@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:31 AM
I believe that you have forwarded a private, offlist reply to the list.
So much for privacy, eh?
Gordo
At 10:59 +0100 2/7/07, the contactbox wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:gordon.joly@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:46 AM Subject: RE: [Wikimediauk-l] Editors' exclusion due to privacy
[Snip]
Two points
- You are representing the views of others, and I am not sure you
have that right. Especially since there are anonymous, and are not acting as a single body.
- Wikimedia UK is about sending money to Foundation. One of the
reasons I left (days before the legal incorporation) was that I was interested in research and education, but the Chapters are primarily (but not only) about getting the tax back on donations. I can form a charity called "Wiki Research, Education and Training Ltd" and not use the trade marks of the foundation. And I could do that in a few weeks.
It's hard to see either of those as good quality answers.
Which is perhaps why I did not send them to this list: you did.
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org