[Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness

[Risker]

Getting back on topic, the board's resolution says:


We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by:
* Treating new editors with patience, kindness, and respect; being aware
of the challenges facing new editors, and reaching out to them; and
encouraging others to do the same;
* Improving communication on the projects; simplifying policy and
instructions; and working with colleagues to improve and make friendlier
policies and practices regarding templates, warnings, and deletion;
* Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that
improve usability and accessibility;
* Increasing community awareness of these issues and supporting outreach
efforts of individuals, groups and Chapters;
* Working with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier,
more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation; and
encouraging best practices and community leaders; and
* Working with colleagues to develop practices to discourage disruptive
and hostile behavior, and repel trolls and stalkers.



This is an area where every project is going to have its own take on things,
and we can probably learn from each other's experience; however, what
information there is seems to be housed on the strategy wiki, which many
users avoid because it's not part of the WMF matrix (i.e., SUL doesn't
apply).  With that in mind, I wonder if there can be a place where projects
discuss what has helped and not helped, located somewhere on Meta.

Coming from the behemoth English Wikipedia, where I make most of my
contributions, I know that communication becomes increasingly difficult as
size increases, and that there is a tendency to "standardize" messages and
processes to the point that they begin to immobilize sensible action.

I'm particularly interested in policy simplification; I know our project has
far, far too many complex and even contradictory policies, guidelines, and
miscellaneous pages that result in "alphabet soup" messages that even
experienced users find almost impenetrable. I pity the newbie who gets a
"welcome" message that leads them to the Manual of Style, for example.
Featured article writers "discuss" what it really means on a regular basis,
so there's little hope an inexperienced editor will be able to follow the
contradictions in it.

A few thoughts to bring us back where we started.

Risker/Anne