[Foundation-l] WMF and the press

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

>  The problem is that, in our organization, just as in any organization,
> there are sometimes some disagreements in the way things are run (eg,
> Lodewijk this morning). These disagreements are normal. And the
> appropriate way to help solve these disagreements is by talking through
> them.
> What is bad is to make too much noise around each disagreement, putting
> too much importance in them, or inventing arguments, inventing other
> stories to further fuel the disagreements.
>

The easiest way not to make too much noise around these regular
disagreements is not to hide them, as a general rule; so that they are not
special news.  (also, developing a thick skin to uninteresting taunts and
articles from tabloid authors who will make a big deal out of anything).

Hiding all disagreements makes even the simple and uninteresting ones seem
like news when public.  It also promotes a chilling effect on speaking
publicly and creates a caste of people who are afraid to discuss the
organization in any detail with those outside that caste.  Rather than
having a few rare incidents to avoid discussing publicly, it imposes a large
burden on those in the know.

Of course working towards consensus in small groups is an excellent practice
for discussion in general; great as a style guideline for good membership in
a collaborative decision-making body.  Not so great as a law that binds
people even when consensus cannot be reached and they have dissenting
opinions to share with others.

The worst outcome would be stifling dissenting opinions from people who have
thought long and hard about a situation.  Pretending uniformity of opinion,
and censuring anyone who dares state disagreements publicly, would be
harmful.

Many of the world's major organizations provide ways for their members to
convey their opinions, whatever they may be, which often disagree violently
with majority decisions.  Wikipedia should aspire to no less, and could do
much better (there are major organizations and governing bodies which are
almost completely transparent about their slates, debates, and votes,
including for example disagreements and the full text of resolutions to be
discussed).

SJ