[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 110, Issue 27

[Romaine Wiki]

It doesn't sound like a smart decision to me. From my own experience I know that many office people in the Wikimedia movement do a great job, but are terrible in maintaining a wiki. While volunteers are mostly good at this because of their experience.

Why removing the tools that experienced people are good in using them if needed? 

The signal this give the the community is: "fuck off, we know better". I really hope the office doesn't actually want to give that signal but want to work alongside with the community.

Please think things through... 

Romaine


> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 21:15:02 +1000
> From: "K. Peachey" <p858snake at gmail.com>
> To: tomasz at twkozlowski.net,
>     Wikimedia Mailing List
>     <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki
> at least)
> Message-ID:
>    
> <CADnECnX4O9Ma=uhVEmCVmBEhgVJ8HA4n-to_vKxSc+wDkSzSFg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
> 
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki.  At
> this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that
> administrator access
> is given only to staff and board.  I am having
> administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled,
> effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> -- 
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
> 
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited
> the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent
> responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
> 
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first,
> When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
> 
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is
> that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the
> community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how
> userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're
> distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
> 
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?,
> although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
> 
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community?
> Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards?
> just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately
> strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else
> that falls
> under the foundation)
> 
> [1]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F>
> [2]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung>
> [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>