[Wikimedia-l] The new narrowed focus by WMF

[Marc Riddell]

> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru>wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> 
>>> I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree
>>> with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great
>>> talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as
>>> after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive
>>> innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things
>>> that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to
>>> resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation
>>> itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways
>>> to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle
>>> that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced
>>> than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually
>>> be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just
>>> through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a
>>> conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid
>>> we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus.
>>> 
>>> Dan Rosenthal
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Unsubscribe: 
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wik
>>> imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> whereas I can agree or disagree with you on your points, I fail to see the
>> connection to the Malleus's ban debate. Could you please elaborate? I am
>> not sure I would like to see WMF involved there, if this is your point
>> (probably not).
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> on 10/21/12 5:29 PM, Dan Rosenthal at swatjester at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> The connection is that it is an example of the significantly more
> negative/hostile environment and failure of en.wp's governance structure
> that harms editor retention; this is something that could have been studied
> and reported on by the Fellowship program. Basically, it's a specific
> example of a broader problem that would be perfect for Fellows to look at,
> were the program to continue. I was not advocating that the WMF be involved
> in Malleus's specific debate.
> 
While I agree completely with what you say, Dan, I think it would be a good
idea to start the discussion with a coherent definition and/or description
of the English Wikipedia's "governance structure".

And, a discussion of the work environment of the Project is very much worth
it's own thread.

Marc Riddell