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

[Dan Rosenthal]

On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote:

> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
>>> to escape the unfounded criticism.
>> 
>> This +1.  I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of
>> weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions on
>> this list -- in some cases not even their own actions.  Obviously, we should
>> be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that
>> end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to
>> default to "wrong" until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of
>> employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore.
> 
> Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already,
> though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. 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, so
> Wikimedia employees take the time to do what's required of them, but nothing
> more. That's to be expected. 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.
> 
> A few Wikimedia employees are part of the "Community Department," and there
> should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among them,
> though she's working as a contractor until the end of February). From what I
> can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean that overly
> harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a
> responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of sidesteps the
> issue of her in particular discussing MediaWiki....)
> 
> It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are "wrong," that's a bad
> and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an
> organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is.
> Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately
> among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even
> notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the
> resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring.
> 
> MZMcBride
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the "main" public list we have.)

You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault.

-Dan