Even if it is an en-wiki only issue, it's having a clear impact on editor retention and therefore the long-term sustainability of the project. I think trying to fix that is easy to dismiss as "micromanagement" but sometimes it turns out that fixing the big picture /does/ require organizational leadership to address specific things.
-Leigh
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, here's the issue. It's never been clear to me whether this is a WMF-wide issue or it's an English Wikipedia specific issue. The overwhelming majority of people participating on this list work almost exclusively on enwiki, and almost every single experience discussed here involves enwiki.
As important as we all know English Wikipedia to be (if nothing else, it's the fundraising driver from which the bulk of donations derives), it's also only one of hundreds of projects. There are issues with the Board micromanaging a single project directly, and pretty serious issues when the Board tries to fix a problem on one project by creating a global policy or rule that may actually be counterproductive in other areas. (And as we can see from the obtuseness that Commons shows about such issues as personality rights - a major gendergap issue in my mind - even when the Board does try to intervene, it's often ineffective.)
Risker/Anne
On 3 July 2014 14:58, Leigh Honeywell leigh@hypatia.ca wrote:
The more I hear about this, the more I think this is something that WMF needs to address at an institutional level (Board etc.) to resolve these process issues and loopholes. Has this ever been taken "up the chain"?
-Leigh
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
You know, I sat on Arbcom for five years, and there were several occasions when I practically begged those complaining about the behaviour of certain individuals to initiate a case....but nobody wanted to do that...
Well, you know I did actually take one of the worst misogynists on en.wiki to ArbCom,[1] and it was such a horrible experience that I decided to never do it again. After giving up a month of my life to the case and enduring constant harassment during the process, all of the evidence that I painstakingly assembled, presented, and defended was completely ignored by ArbCom, and instead he was banned for a year for making a legal threat. He is now free to return on the condition that he simply agrees not to make any more legal threats. You were actually on that ArbCom panel, Risker, so I don't really understand your argument that taking incivil editors to ArbCom is a good idea. To me it is worse than a waste of effort, it is actually counterproductive and an invitation to be relentlessly harassed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Ca...
Ryan Kaldari
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Leigh Honeywell http://hypatia.ca @hypatiadotca
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap