On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Pete Forsyth
<peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As a former staff member who actively sought out
(and received very
little)
guidance on how to approach my approach to
Wikipedia editing during my
tenure,
In other words, you were expected to apply good judgment. It would
have been nice if you had been given explicit assurances that editing
Wikipedia while you're on staff (obviously primarily outside of work
time) is perfectly fine, because it is. :)
I think I've been misunderstood on this point -- perhaps my fault. I want
to be
very clear -- I don't feel "wronged" on this front, it isn't a big
deal to me. I brought this up only in order to comment on your assertion
that giving staff broad license, and no guidance above and beyond Wikipedia
policy, would tend to *strengthen* volunteer engagement, which I think is
backwards.
One of the dynamics that was initially challenging for me, personally and
professionally, was that some editors I had known for some time as a
volunteer -- and others who I was just meeting -- began to defer to my
judgment. The disposition of community members toward me changed
noticeably. I did not want to be inappropriately overbearing, and among all
the things I was trying to accomplish in my work, that was a puzzle I did
not have time to apply much thought to. Some guidance from WMF management
could have helped with that situation. (The lack of it did not, in the long
run, constitute a big problem.)
But Erik, it seems to me that you're operating from a premise that
guidelines or rules inherently tend to discourage activity. I think that
premise is flawed.
I would like to avoid naming names in this thread, but
surely you can see
the risks associated with the approach you *have*
taken? Leaving the
Belfer
Center situation aside,
.. which, if anything, could have been avoided had everyone who was
part of the project been a bit more experienced with Wikimedia norms
and practices.
Agreed.
We
should default to openness, to encouraging participation in our
community, and to forgiving mistakes. That is the right thing to do
for an organization that is, needs to be, and will remain anchored in
the community.
Agreed.
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we
will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer
one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to
their heads, because this is the kind of moral panicky BS we need to
stay the hell clear of.
I have to confess -- I am having a lot of trouble parsing your last
paragraph. What is the point where we are so far apart? And (as I think Fae
has asked) what is the "moral panicky BS" and how does it relate to this
discussion?
I think you've left aside the more significant points I raised -- but it's
late here, so maybe you're planning to come back to it tomorrow.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]