[WikiEN-l] NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors

[Fred Bauder]

> Truth is, I'm not even sure I want to get into this. And, for the record,
> this inquiry concerns only the English Wikipedia Project. I spend 99% of
> the
> time I have to devote to the English Wikipedia Project at editing
> articles;
> the other 1% being spent on the Mailing Lists. So, consequently, I know
> very
> little about the authority structure that exists in the Project. But
> something that has been bothering me for some time now; something that
> has
> been touched on very cautiously at various times on this List; and
> something
> that I firmly believe is at the root of many of the problems that have
> been
> discussed on this List (and elsewhere) for some time now. What is the
> actual
> chain of authority that now exists in the Project? This I am certain of:
> Sue Gardner is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Just
> like
> any corporate structure, her line of authority is clear enough. The
> Foundation oversees (my term) and provides the technical equipment and
> funding to operate the Project. Is there a similar "structure", "line of
> authority" or "buck stops here" entity within the English Wikipedia
> Project.
> Would, could, someone please help me to see and understand it? I need
> some
> basics here so that I can take part in any discussion.
>
> Marc Riddell

Editing, content, and on-wiki policy is in the hands of the editing
community, limited by their ability to agree.

The exception is actions which create potential liabilities.

Heavy responsibility I know...

Fred Bauder

> on 1/31/11 7:07 PM, Stephanie Daugherty at sdaugherty at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Regarding vested contributors, they are both a good and a bad thing -
>> good in that retaining them means retaining experience, bad in that
>> some of them have a sense of entitlement and that a few attract a
>> "posse" that helps them to realize that entitlement.
>>
>> Cabalism is an unfortunate side effect of weak governance - banding
>> into factions helps some to pursue their own agendas even if that is
>> just to derail any sort of change that would weaken their position.
>>
>> Rfa reform and attempts to streamline desysopping have been largely
>> stonewalled by relatively few people. Thats just one area but one of
>> the longest running ones.
>>
>> I think a good next step might be to start a public debate on the
>> issues we are now facing and invite the wmf trustees to participate in
>> and lead the discussion.
>>
>> I don't think we need to rush headfirst into changes but we can't keep
>> letting a few particularly loud and persistant voices keep throwing us
>> off track for years at a time either so someone is going to have to
>> get the ball rolling and have enough push to keep it moving.
>>
>>
>> On 1/31/11, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 31 January 2011 14:38, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>>> Governance Central.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's the closest en:wp has.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L
>>>> mailing
>>>>> list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there,
>>>>> they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects  where
>>>> there
>>>>> are concerns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're snapping at me, as if I'm causing this problem for you. I'm
>>>> not, I'm telling you about it.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying you would need them to intervene directly? It may be
>>>> feasible for the arbcom - the closest en:wp has to a governing body -
>>>> to invite WMF to do so. This would likely avoid directly crossing the
>>>> streams (which would be bad) but get an outside force in there if the
>>>> internal one really feels it isn't up to the effort.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> David, I'm not snapping at you particularly, although I do think
>>> you've
>>> hijacked this thread, which is intended to be about the gender gap.
>>> (I'll
>>> resist the urge to insert a sexist comment here. :) )
>>>
>>> The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are
>>> formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees.  I would love to
>>> see
>>> them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations
>>> and
>>> their experiences; they have the opportunity to see things from a very
>>> different and much broader perspective than those of us at ground
>>> level. I
>>> am sure that HaeB would be happy to find a place on Signpost for a
>>> monthy
>>> "Discussion with a Trustee" that could then be flipped over to
>>> Translatewiki
>>> or wherever to share with multiple other projects.
>>>
>>> It is all well and good for (I count three) former arbitrators to say
>>> that
>>> Arbcom should be enforcing the civility policy, and to act as the
>>> governors
>>> of the project. But we are not the governors; in July 2009 the
>>> community
>>> soundly reminded us of that when we tried to set up an advisory
>>> council. And
>>> by the time a case gets to us, rude behaviour is often only an
>>> offshoot of
>>> the core problems of the case.
>>>
>>> Arbcom is hardly in the position to go through and review the actions
>>> of all
>>> admins with the hope of rooting out which ones are "uncivil" and which
>>> ones
>>> aren't.  Even with the diminished number of active administrators,
>>> there are
>>> still 800 of them, and we aren't a human resources department. I
>>> believe Rob
>>> also has a good point; most entry-level rudeness and newbie-biting
>>> comes
>>> from non-administrators, be they RC patrollers who often revert and
>>> leave
>>> templated user messages without really reviewing the edits, or new
>>> page
>>> patrollers who are tagging articles for deletion less than 3 minutes
>>> after
>>> their creation. (I note that WereSpielChequers makes the same point.)
>>>
>>> Fred, yes, if someone files a request for arbitration, it's going to
>>> be
>>> taken seriously and reviewed seriously; the point is that people are
>>> not
>>> filing requests for arbitration that turn on this issue.
>>>
>>> And finally, I'll point out that if you're reading this list, you're a
>>> vested contributor. Please stop using that term as if it's a bad
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>