[Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Birgitte SB]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and 
>procedures
> 
<snip>
> 
> Demanding  answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an
> upcoming  change trickling out into the community prior to an official
> announcement.  The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive
> discussion about  a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
> 

I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive 
discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and 
the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being 
repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, 
it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring 
discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the 
gossip network.  I take issue with the implication that you would not object to 
someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being 
spread here. 


I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had 
originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information 
from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant 
because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains 
for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a 
continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I 
would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is 
still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue 
altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts 
and I appreciate them a great deal.  Introspection and change are hard things to 
do; thank you. 


The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is not 
because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone 
on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend of 
responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral questions 
leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of wrongdoing 
in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of seeking 
information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other.  Of 
course, gossiping is most effective of all.  But I for one, care enough about 
the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to integrate 
newcomers as to prefer ignorance.

Birgitte SB