[Foundation-l] On the cost of explaining things.

[Chad]

That doesn't make the information any less shocking to those reading it.

Consider the recent issue of the"secret mailing list" to "ban problem
users." Now, without getting into discussions about the list itself again
(I'd rather not open that again, and I hope everyone agrees). Such a list
would be received badly by the community (who is already largely
paranoid anyway) who commonly cry afoul of "cabals" and "secret
dealings." Hell, even #wikipedia-en-admins, one of the most *open*
private channels I'v ever seen has been criticised before for being overly
cliquey and back-doorish.

Now, you intend to stand before us and say that those who leaked
information first should've come forward and spoken with the foundation
prior to letting others in on it? I'm amused.

While I am not advocating the open debate for the new accountant or
business manager, I /do/ expect some level of communication from the
Foundation, which does not happen nearly as often as it used to. We're
seeing Sue announce a new hire every week and yet any time any
critique is raised (as is considered the norm in our community, to
encourage debate where appropriate), it gets dismissed with a
"You don't know the big picture," or "You don't understand," or
(and more commonly from some users than others), a very long-winded
e-mail with intricate descriptions that no one has the time to decipher
and become of a victim of tl;dr.

Trust is a two way street, it's not just me putting blind faith. Perhaps
I'll trust the Foundation a bit more when they can learn to be a bit
more honest and up-front with us.

Always,
Chad

On Jan 9, 2008 12:57 AM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 5:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, yes, communication is expensive but you are the glass maker
> > complaining about the cost of sand.  It's a cost of doing business.
>
> Mhh, I have yet to see mailing list flamewars turn magically into
> useful products. ;-)
>
> I'm in favor of first promoting transparency through promoting more
> actual volunteer participation, and secondly, through more systematic
> & regular reporting. The model of free-for-all debates on anything &
> everything attracts trolling and noise which exhaust and consume both
> staff and volunteers. Debating whether you should let the community
> vote to hire an accountant (as was recently suggested) is not a useful
> exercise for anyone.
>
> > These days it seems many users learn more about Wikimedia from leaks
> > and reporters than they do through the official channels.
>
> The fundamentally destructive nature of the leaks that have happened
> recently is not the actual information itself, it's that the people
> who have forwarded information from private lists without permission
> have engaged in no attempt at an actual dialog with the Foundation
> about when & whether the information they have leaked could be
> legitimately published. That makes these actions appear purely
> self-interested, ill-considered, or hostile, and will drive towards
> less internal transparency, not more, as truly sensitive information
> can no longer be posted to larger groups of people.
> --
> Erik Möller
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>