On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
A decision about how the public consumes Wikipedia content (e.g., Media
Viewer) is an editorial decision,
and it's one that the WMF has chosen to
make unilaterally. WMF has furthermore moved to
give its staff rights
that
facilitate unilateral behavior in the future. But
to the degree that Sue
Gardner's policy remains in place (and I'm assuming it does), the WMF's
position is that any problematic actions taken by individual staff should
be subject to community processes.
I think this is a misunderstanding. Erik's actions are pretty clearly made
in his capacity as a WMF senior staff member, and it follows from that fact
that the WMF regard this a decision that it is (at least in the final
analysis) one that is theirs to take (that is to say, not "editorial"
Arguing that Erik ought to be sanctioned on the German wikipedia for doing
his job is, being as kind as possible, futile wikilawyering.
If you disagree with what he is doing then some appropriate courses of
action involve speaking to Foundation ED or their Board. There are many
other inappropriate courses of action that are being pursued as well,
though.
Yeah -- and speaking for myself, I see much more value in approaching this
as an organizational issue, than as individual actions.
But when the organization acts unilaterally, it's reasonable to expect that
those being overruled will explore all options available to them. And my
point is, this one is not merely available, but is endorsed by the WMF
itself.
Those discussing the flaws in the approach taken by individual WMF staff
members (which doesn't include me) are doing what the WMF has said they
should do.
Pete