Hi Anders,
Your perspective is very different from mine or from any I've heard, and I'd like to understand it better:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
I also think it would be good to remember that WMF transformation from the "Superprotect disaster"
I do not see the transition you suggest. As I understand it, we are still very much in the "Superprotect disaster" era -- one which began under the same Executive Director we have today and, I believe, four of the present Trustees. None has publicly acknowledged the existence of the letter signed by 1,000 people,[1] nor addressed the (IMO more important) second of the letter's two requests.
These sentiments reflect the more-or-less-unanimous (depending how you interpret the comments) perspectives of those responding to an informal poll I requested,[2] which was presented in a November 2015 op-ed I published in the English Wikipedia Signpost.[3]
Since the poll is informal, it is in no way "closed" -- if you have a different perspective, Anders (or for any who agree, for that matter), I would appreciate any additions to that page.
to a very much appreciated 2015 Community Wishlist Survey.
I am aware of the existence of the Community Wishlist Survey, and I appreciate that it reflects a desire to move forward, which is a good thing; but I would stop well short of "very much appreciated," for two reasons:
(a) In the absence of a clear assertion from the WMF about the role of local projects (along the lines of what was requested in the letter), I am personally reluctant to engage in WMF-directed engagement processes (on the principle "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.") I prefer to put my time into efforts where I have confidence that I will have appropriate influence.
(b) The name "Community Wishlist Survey" continues a misguided notion that has been prevalent at WMF for many years: Namely, that "the community" is a constituency among others, which should be appeased. My experience of people in "the community" is utterly different: many volunteers are just as concerned about the future of Wikipedia, and issues like demographic biases, the needs of readers, etc. as WMF personnel. These things are in fact what *drive* us to volunteer to begin with. But according to the artificial distinction of "community" as a stakeholder group distinct from "reader" that is prevalent at the WMF, it is a truism that "community interests" are something other from "reader interests." That truism is in fact false.
I would rather see a "Wishlist Survey" (another name for which could be "Open Strategic Planning Process"), than a *community-specific* wishlist survey. But this year, unlike the five year plan created in 2010, we have no such thing.
To go from an "inside-out" to an "outside-in" model in deciding what
functionality to develop is a revolution.
The trend in recent years, in my view, has been in the opposite direction.
And even if we as users all applaud this change, we should also respect it can be felt tough to adjust to if you are "inside"
It is my view that many who are "inside" -- staff at the WMF -- have been pushing hard to have the kind of "revolution" you seem to think has already happened. Given the number of staff who have lost their jobs, I believe they are doing so at their own peril, which makes that work all the more admirable. I wish I could name names here, as there has been excellent work done within the walls of WMF by a large number of people; but I expect that in the present environment, they would prefer *not* to be named and acknowledged.
I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for supporting this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)
I would have to give this final point a big "citation needed" tag.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superpr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-11/Op-ed