I totally second James' invitation to avoid a certain tone, language and
conspiracy theories.
I will also add that the more those tone, language, and conspiracy theories
are used in these threads,
the *less* likely a good chunk of the community will participate in
conversation.
If we really want to be open and inclusive, please remain civil, polite and
constructive.
Wikimedia-l is not a felt as a "safe space" and this is a huge problem: at
least if we want meaningful, helpful, rich discussions.
This is not to say we do not have to clearly state what we think (and
feel): but please, let us avoid (metaphorical) pitchforks.
Thanks.
Aubrey
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:39 AM, James Alexander <jamesofur(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I will admit that if I knew I would likely not be
wiling to say without
talking to others first. However I will never lie and I can honestly say
that I do not.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi James Alexander,
Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended
Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board?
I can think of no reason why that should be a secret.
Thanks,
Fae
On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander <jamesofur(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Oh dear
god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate
for
> question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line
of
thought
is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what
seems to be a giant school of red herring
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring>. We haven't quite yet
gotten
to
> "Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters
in
it's
name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only
concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the
"Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic
(for
> the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on
> something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't
actually
> true at all at this point).
>
> There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns
(in
> many ways I wish I could take part in the
discussion but there is just
no
> good way to do that) but please let's
try to keep the lines of thought
as
> sane as possible (which I know is the norm
for all of you so I know
it's
possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information
our
imagination can always get the best of us, I
certainly understand that,
but
it is rarely helpful.
James
User:Jamesofur
User:Jalexander-WMF
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>