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

Thu Feb 17 08:38:33 UTC 2011

Hoi,
Communication is why I am absolutely happy when I find someone from the
staff doing his or her thing on meta or foundation-l. When you compare that
to the separation between the professionals and the community that is the
result of the many private ways of communicating.

Why for instance is there an outreach wiki that includes so many activities
that could be on Meta? When outreach is intended to be inclusive of the
community, its results in making Meta a ghetto.

So Christine, I love you for writing on foundation-l. I am really happy that
you gave us the opportunity to learn about VPAT. As a result I blogged about
VPAT because never mind that it is not a global standard, the absence of one
means that complying to this standard means that we do a good job.

Please continue and write to foundation-l and Meta. Grow a thick skin
because we will always have new people who will have to learn moderation in
order to become effective. It is the pain and the gain of working with an
awesome community.
Thank you again,
          GerardM

On 17 February 2011 08:47, Christine Moellenberndt <
cmoellenberndt at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I am loathe to dive in here, since it was my post that kind of
> kick-started this whole thing and I certainly don't want to draw any
> more fire to be honest.  But I also feel loathe to stay away, partially
> for that same reason, but also because of a few other things I've been
> thinking about not just this afternoon and evening, but in general.
>
> 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.
>
> We're all human. None of us are perfect by any means. I say that doubly,
> triply, quadruply about myself.  There's a saying I heard somewhere
> today that "Wikipedians are born, not made." I'm not sure I agree with
> that.  Wikipedian tendencies may be born, but Wikipedians are made
> slowly, over the course of thousands of edits, and hours of reading
> policies, procedures, guidelines, essays, and talk pages.  No one joins
> a project knowing all of the rules and regulations.  That takes time.
> And yes, they'll make mistakes along the way.  That's part of learning.
> Also part of learning is on the part of the other people around the
> learner, assuming good faith that the person making the mistakes isn't
> out to do harm, and is... just learning.
>
> 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.
>
> Okay, this got long, and probably overly-preachy. Sorry, gang.  To sum
> the rest up: There are more folks reading this list than you see, every
> mailing list has a ton of lurkers (i've been on my fair share of them
> and then some; sometimes active, sometimes lurking).  Just because
> someone doesn't speak doesn't mean they're not there.  One thing I've
> learned through my time training in my discipline is that you can often
> learn more from the silences than you do from the voices speaking.  My
> hope is that through all of this we can perhaps bring down the rhetoric
> a little and tempt the silences to speak to us a little more.  They have
> valuable insights, too.
>
> -Christine
> (gets a little poetic when it gets late. sorry guys :))
> (and by the way, this is just little me with a cat on her lap talking,
> not WMF employee talking)
>
> ---------
>
> Christine Moellenberndt
> Community Associate
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> christine at wikimedia.org
>
>
> On 2/16/11 10:43 PM, Jon Davis wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 21:00, MZMcBride<z at mzmcbride.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already,
> >>
> >>
> > You might be surprised at the number that do subscribe.  Not that I've
> got
> > an official count  (since people use their personal accounts, such as
> > myself), but a majority of the staff _are_ subscribed to foundation-l.
>  In
> > fact, during tech "orientation" (A process I'm still working on), I
> > recommend to everyone that they sign up for Foundation-l.
> >
> >
> >> Wikimedia employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but
> they're
> >> not required
> >> to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in
> >> general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people,
> >
> > I do subscribe every staff member to our staff-l mailing list.  This is
> for
> > everyones benefit, it's how the staff communicates vital (and sometimes
> fun)
> > information to everyone else.  Additionally, for those who never
> previously
> > have used mailing lists, it gets them familiar with the concept.  I can't
> > think of one current staff who has _never_ posted to the list at least
> once.
> >
> >
> >>   Personally, I think it's rather strange that
> >> people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list
> >> and
> >> the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make.
> >>
> >>
> > I've been a community member a lot longer than I've been staff, even
> still,
> > I only skim foundation-l about half the time. In my thinking, to really
> get
> > properly involved with a thread (rather than throwing out random comments
> > which might only be tangentially related) it can take a lot reading,
> > investigating and writing. My salary comes from donations, and I don't
> want
> > to spend that paid time on something that isn't necessarily my job (When
> > Google Apps came up, I responded), some could see that as wasteful.   Now
> if
> > the entire community feels that every staff member should read and
> respond
> > to foundation-l, well then that would be a different story all together.
> >
> > I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong, or suggest what we do...
> > just a few bits from someone who's spent time on both sides of the fence.
> >
> > -Jon
> >
> > PS.  I'm writing this on my own time.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>