[Foundation-l] Criticisms (was New wiki creation moratorium)

[Birgitte SB]

--- Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Tim Starling
> <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >  I think it makes no sense at all. Anyone who
> thinks it's easier to change
> >  the world than to change the transition date in a
> secret draft license
> >  needs their head examined.
> 
> Thus it makes no sense for anyone to insist on that
> course of action
> to begin with.  But if, for some ridiculous reason,
> that were
> nonnegotiable or not worth negotiating, it would
> make perfect sense to
> stop creating wikis temporarily rather than having
> to deal with the
> headache of migrating their license manually.  Which
> is why I objected
> to the tone of the criticisms of Erik et al. --
> there was a
> presumption of unreasonableness *on the part of
> Wikimedia* that wasn't
> warranted without further info (even if my
> particular theory happens
> to be incorrect).
> 
> But I don't think you disagree with any of that.

I think the tone of the discussion varied and cannot
agree with all the criticisms being lumped together as
having an objectionable tone.  

Soapbox: This is very active and public list. 
Conspicuously leaving key information unsaid will
never be unnoticed or unremarked.  If everyone who
believes in giving WMF the benefit of the doubt in
these situations politely ignores such omissions, that
will only mean that they will be pointed out by those
who are most likely describe the problem in the worst
possible light. Over time this leads to a people
anticipating any criticism to be meant destructively
which further intimidates people with constructive
intentions from voicing criticism.  A large part of
why this list can become so nasty is not that it is
full of trolls that are waiting to pounce on any
opportunity. Rather it is because moderate opinions
are self-censored out of fear of being associated as a
troll (or a shill as the case may be), which leaves
only the most extreme opinions with enough motivation
to speak out.  Two or three extreme points of view
being the only visible opinions leads to nastiness.

Although I found the rest of you posting in this
thread informative and helpful.  Objecting the tone of
criticism, without specifying what exactly was
objectionable only contributes to the problem I
outlined above.  I don't want to pick on you about
this, but I think it is an appropriate time to bring
out these thoughts with the recent moderation and your
post gave me an opportunity to do so.  

Birgitte SB
(who is grateful and hopeful for the moderation)


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ