[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: Fri, February 4, 2011 2:50:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and 
>procedures
> 
> I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine  and
> Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to  post
> about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be  answered.

Meh. It is not as though he is bringing up some pet issue in which the timing is 
entirely at his discretion. I would imagine the issue is coming forward at this 
particular time because of the time-frame chosen someone @ WMF. However mere 
animosity to his timing would not have prompted me to respond.

My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you 
preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community 
prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l.  You 
just don't get it.

Micheal Snow suggested gossip is just human nature. Ni modo. But there is a huge 
difference between stopping it (which I have never suggested doing) and 
endorsing it as a more valid channel than foundation-l. That gossip could be 
endorsed to any degree by someone that has a staff position in the "Community" 
department says a great deal that is not at all positive about the level of 
understanding and/or leadership in that department. 


Gossip destroys trust. Gossip inhibits transparency.  Gossip excludes those that 
are new. Gossip excludes those who socialize differently (in different 
languages, tolerate different kinds of humor, at different times, etc.) Gossip 
deteriorates the quality/accuracy of information. Gossip reduces the 
quantity/detail of information in circulation. Gossip doesn't scale.  Every 
single one of these values should be a significant concern of the "Community" 
department given the current state of things. [1]

Gossip is inevitable and won't ever be stopped.  But people can personally try 
to become gossip black-holes and/or work to shift the substance of the gossip to 
the appropriate channel. And WMF staff can certainly encourage the advertising 
of issues through more valid (i.e. any other) channels. At the very least, they 
should refrain from opposing the use of more valid channels in place of gossip. 


Birgitte SB


[1]To be complete I feel I need add in some values where gossip rated 
positively. Just to prevent anyone who has  never given the issue much thought 
from jumping ahead from what I have said above to Gossip=Evil. 


Gossip an organic component of human communities (No installation required). 
Gossip is  probably the most grossly inexpensive informational network (If you 
few resources or the information is rather binary making quality losses 
insignificant).  Gossip very efficient at spreading the information that is more  
passionately cared about faster and wider than information that people care less 
strongly about (No need to spend time evaluating information for relevancy 
before distribution). Gossip is better than  nothing in short-term 
considerations. (Temporary communities will rarely find the drawbacks relevant)

Gossip != Evil  Gossip can be very good when a crowded theater catches fire. 
Gossip is simply not an informational network that is compatible with the goals 
of the Wikimedia movement.