[WikiEN-l] Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia.

[Florence Devouard]

Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 27/10/2007, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27/10/2007, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>>> After a one month period, on December 9th, we will re-evaluate this
>>>> decision using previously established methods [...]
>>> Who is "we"? The Gregory Maxwell committee? Obviously it wasn't a Board
>>> decision, if Florence knows nothing about it. And if it was an executive
>>> decision, why isn't it being announced by Sue, or one of the staff?
>> This "experiment" needed to be concluded by someone and it seems that
>> the board haven't taken any steps in this direction. Two options when
>> it comes to concluding this experiment are declaring it a success and
>> making it permanent or declaring it failure and ending the ban. Since
>> the motivation for the trial was PR and since the ban has probably
>> done more net harm than good, I welcome Gregory Maxwell's initiative.
> 
> P.S. Just as a point of discussion: the Foundation was created to make
> certain processes easier and to centralise fundraising, &c. Why is a
> non-Foundation decision or initiative somehow less valid than one led
> by the Foundation?
> 
> Yes, the Foundation holds the purse strings (and does a very important
> job), but the Foundation has been given too much primacy and authority
> on Wikimedia issues. The Foundation also has a tendency to consolidate
> power and remove community-based decision making processes (e.g. the
> lack of consultation in the latest fundraising drive).
> 

{{cite your sources}} :-)

Honestly Oldak, this seems to me to be largely a string of statements 
which are seriously lacking backing up.
I suppose we may have done sometimes what you are blaming us for.

But look, here, you are accusing us of having removed power from you on 
fundraising issue. I would agree that you were perhaps less consulted 
than you would have wished to be, but how can you talk about removing 
power from you when several of the main concerns voiced by the english 
community over the fundraising drive have been precisely acknowledged 
and that modifications have been implemented in the following few hours ?
It seems to me that there might be an unsufficient "consultation", but I 
see not where the lack of authority and power really was. If what you 
are suggested is that you should have the power to decide when we need 
to do a fundraising, indeed, I would disagree with you.
I do consider that a significant authority of the Foundation over 
fundraising issues is mandatory, because ultimately, in case the 
Foundation gets in financial troubles, the board will be the one 
responsible in front of the law, not a vague, amorphous and often 
anonymous community. We strive to listen as much as possible, but 
ultimately, once there is responsability over something, there must be 
authority somehow.

You also mention that the Foundation has been given too much primacy and 
authority on Wikimedia issues. I would be happy to hear more about his 
and understand what your concerns are.

Thanks

Ant

PS: note that the Foundation has never imposed that the creation of 
pages by anonymous be prevented, or on the contrary be allowed. That's 
not a Foundation issue, that's a community issue. It is YOUR 
responsability to make that decision. However, we are free to have an 
opinion on the topic, just as you are free to have an opinion as well.