[Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)

[MZMcBride]

Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
> I feel like part of the problem here is that there's an expectation of
> perfection right out of the box for everyone.  One of the biggest
> complaints I've been hearing as we start figuring out why it is so many
> new editors don't come back to the project is, "I created and article
> and it was deleted a few hours/minutes later, before anyone even had a
> chance to expand it and make it better." It's often decided it's "not
> good enough," even though it wasn't given a chance to be "good enough."
> Other members (both editors and staff) are forever marked by one small
> mistake, either one that happened years ago when one was new and didn't
> know the rules or one small one that in the grand scheme of things
> wasn't really *that* important probably.  That blackmark, small as it
> may be, sticks around forever, dogging you every time you try and do
> something new.  Which is terribly frustrating.

I don't think people demand perfection. They do demand, for better or worse,
a very high level of transparency and openness from Wikimedia, though. That
isn't just "do it first, report it later"; it means involving the community
(or at least notifying the community) when things are being considered, big
and small. Seeking the community's input, listening to and engaging the
community, etc. When that isn't done, when people do things privately or
secretly without community consultation or discussion, it breeds distrust
and, yes, eventually it leads to people forming conclusions about others'
motivations and intentions. I think that's largely natural and reasonable,
given the circumstances. But it's also fairly easy to address.

I'm obviously more than a bit biased here, but I'd say that a good
percentage of the criticisms on this list and elsewhere stem from some lack
of transparency, openness, or dialogue. Maybe I'm off the mark, though. I'm
quite interested if you see something similar or something different here.

> And even those who have passed through learning sometimes make mistakes.
> As my goddaughter says, "poo-poo happens." You're rushing to finish
> something, you forget what you're doing, you have a brain fart, any
> number of reasons cause that to happen.  Or, you just made a simple
> misjudgment.  That happens too because... well, we're human not robots
> (right? :)).  We're going to make mistakes.  It's what makes us human
> and makes our lives more interesting.  If we were all perfect... man
> Wikipedia would be boring!  That mistake doesn't mean the person is
> totally wrong, or bad, or out to get anyone.  It just means they made a
> mistake.
> 
> And when people make mistakes, it's fine to point them out. It's
> wonderful! It's how people learn, it's how they grow, and it keeps us
> humble.  But there are ways to deliver that criticism that work better
> than others.  That phrase "you attract more flies with honey than with
> vinegar" isn't just an old saying, it's pretty true.  I've always
> figured that's what AGF was meant to address.  A "hey, did you mean to
> do that?" or a "Hrm, why did this happen?" is probably better than
> insult hurling or questioning competence.  The latter does nothing but
> cause the other person to get defensive and learn nothing, and then
> leads to this giant brawl where everyone gets hurt.  The former can lead
> to good, productive discussions that help everyone learn something.
> Even phrasing can go a long way to saying things in a way that can be
> taken as a net positive instead of a negative.

Acknowledging mistakes goes a long way toward dispersing distrust, I've
found. Not that nobody at Wikimedia has ever acknowledged a mistake, but it
seems to be a crucial step that's missing from your chronology.

MZMcBride