Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 23/05/2014 20:21, Wil Sinclair wrote:
>>I'd love to explain why I participate on Wikipediocracy, as well as on
the Wikimedia projects. I've already explained it to the WO folks. If
you guys are interested, feel free to start another thread asking me
about it. It's OT for this thread, however.
<<

OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?

Edward

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?

Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.

I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more
comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern
is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in
both environments.

The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to
anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few
times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons
and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say?
The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say
anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that
everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)

Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very
insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there
without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the
concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP
community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked
about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is
another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are
also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to
improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm
not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more
concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively
trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531. Maybe it
would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same
question to understand the greatest concerns in this community.

Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am
not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own
motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional
affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at
keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you
who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on
WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your
professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to
know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct
interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere.
Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some
concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the
people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees
of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to
the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss
anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda
learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that.
Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP
contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am.

I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's
harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be
inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please
respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to
ignore me.

,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
Its a very bold move on your part Will and it will be interesting how this develops over time. I dont participate at Wikipediocracy but I lurk regularly. Perhaps because I have some long-standing issues that no one addresses and its useful to know others have problems too.

> From: wllm@wllm.com
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:06:32 -0700
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
>
> > OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?
>
> Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.
>
> I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
> And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
> them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more
> comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern
> is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in
> both environments.
>
> The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
> the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
> I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to
> anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few
> times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons
> and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say?
> The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say
> anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that
> everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)
>
> Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very
> insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
> accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there
> without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the
> concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP
> community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked
> about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is
> another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are
> also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to
> improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm
> not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more
> concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively
> trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns:
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531. Maybe it
> would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same
> question to understand the greatest concerns in this community.
>
> Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am
> not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own
> motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional
> affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at
> keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you
> who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on
> WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your
> professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to
> know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct
> interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere.
> Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some
> concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the
> people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees
> of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to
> the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss
> anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda
> learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that.
> Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP
> contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am.
>
> I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's
> harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
> specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
> the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be
> inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
> while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please
> respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to
> ignore me.
>
> ,Wil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
Wil Sinclair, 24/05/2014 01:06:
> If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
> accurate information,

Not really. Generally people are concerned about
a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation,
ad hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian;
2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or
irrelevant issues.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
On 24 May 2014 00:24, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not really. Generally people are concerned about
> a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad
> hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian;
> 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or
> irrelevant issues.



We're talking about a site that was founded by a failed wikispammer
for the specific purpose of furthering the business of wikispamming,
that continues in this aim, and that has an extensive track record of
stalking and harassment. I have a hard time seeing that as a
legitimate constituency.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair <wllm@wllm.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.
>
> I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
> And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
> them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more
> comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern
> is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in
> both environments.
>
> The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
> the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
> I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to
> anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few
> times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons
> and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say?
> The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say
> anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that
> everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)
>
> Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very
> insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
> accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there
> without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the
> concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP
> community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked
> about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is
> another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are
> also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to
> improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm
> not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more
> concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively
> trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns:
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531. Maybe it
> would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same
> question to understand the greatest concerns in this community.
>
> Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am
> not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own
> motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional
> affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at
> keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you
> who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on
> WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your
> professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to
> know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct
> interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere.
> Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some
> concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the
> people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees
> of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to
> the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss
> anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda
> learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that.
> Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP
> contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am.
>
> I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's
> harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
> specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
> the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be
> inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
> while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please
> respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to
> ignore me.
>

I don't think you're going to find that anyone thinks you don't have a
right to free speech. For historical context here: on this mailing list
very very few people have ever been banned or put on moderation. It takes a
huge amount of bad behavior to get moderated on Wikimedia mailing lists.

The same culture persists on Wikipedia and most other Wikimedia projects.
The many Wikipedia discussion spaces and the many Wikimedia mailing lists
are extremely open environments where you can see people expressing a wide
variety of perspectives and ideas on how to run the projects. We often get
criticized for not strictly enforcing our civility guidelines/policies.
Many might say we swing too far toward tolerating blatantly rude but
otherwise intelligent/insightful participation.

I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really
the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself
is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the
project. Wikipediocracy is where people go to gossip and troll,
particularly if they are banned and thus can't participate on Wikipedia
anymore. If you're really interested in Wikipedia culture, Wikipedia is
still a pretty large, rambling, and open conversation space where you can
meet actual contributors. ;-)

Steven
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> Not really. Generally people are concerned about
> a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad
> hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian;
> 2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or
> irrelevant issues.
>
> Nemo

Hi Nemo, thanks for the feedback!

RE: 2) I'm not sure what you mean by "people." Has this been discussed
elsewhere? I doubt that everyone on this list shares your viewpoint on
these issues. Is it a particular group that you're referring to?

RE: a) I haven't heard your full perspective on Wikipediocracy, and
I'd like to hear more. I honestly don't know if this is the right
forum to discuss it or not. Do you know of a better one? Would you
rather take this offline? Generally speaking, I prefer to discuss
things in forums where others can benefit.

In any case, please help inform me one way or another. Talk to you soon.

,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks
Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his
wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger
approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the
projects.

Wil - the aversion to Wikipediocracy doesn't come from the mocking or trash
talking. You haven't experienced the history of that site (and its
predecessor) or the regular crowd there. Many of them are perfectly fine.
Some of them have done some pretty seriously fucked up things, and some
others have made themselves a persistent nuisance for no better reason than
that they can. They have certainly exposed some major scandals, and brought
insightful commentary to knotty problems. But please understand that those
who choose to avoid them aren't simply too thin-skinned to take a critical
comment or a bit of strong language.

Lastly, standard Internet comment on free speech: Your legal right to free
speech is not a protection against criticism or a limit in any other way on
what others can say to or about you.

~Nathan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really
> the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself
> is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the
> project. Wikipediocracy is where people go to gossip and troll,
> particularly if they are banned and thus can't participate on Wikipedia
> anymore. If you're really interested in Wikipedia culture, Wikipedia is
> still a pretty large, rambling, and open conversation space where you can
> meet actual contributors. ;-)
>
> Steven

Hi Steven. Yes, I'm trying to get more involved in all the projects.
Frankly, there's a lot more to read and get checked off since the last
time I contributed. :)

Have you gone to Wikipediocracy lately? There was a thread where they
asked who has been banned or indef blocked, and I believe something
like 2/3 of the people who replied were editors in good standing. In
fact, some of the more active users on this list and well respected
members of the community are also active on WO.

I'm not suggesting that people on this list should get active on WO.
The trash talk is not for the faint-of-heart. I actually wish that
many of the issues they discuss over there were discussed more over
here; I have looked in to many of them using secondary sources
(usually on WP itself), and they seem to be very valid concerns with
suggestions that may help address- or at least start a discussion
about- some of the biggest challenges facing WP. I can post the list
of concerns (without the trash talk, of course) that we've put
together on WO in this forum, if that would help you get a better idea
of what is going on over there.

Would you like to help me get to know more about the community? My
talk page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wllm; we can
talk more about newb stuff over there.

Thanks!
,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
On 24 May 2014 00:06, Wil Sinclair <wllm@wllm.com> wrote:

> > OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?
>
> Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.
>

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active
wikipediocracy memeber?


> I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
>
And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
> them.


You know where 4chan is I assume.

The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
> the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
> I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to
> anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few
> times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons
> and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say?
> The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say
> anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that
> everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)
>
>
Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most
compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally
illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text)


> Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very
> insightful people.


Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. We
are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by thousands
of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against
whatever the internet can throw at them.



> If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
> accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there
> without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the
> concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP
> community.


Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it
what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement?



> It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked
> about Child Protection Policies, for example.


Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on
wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that "I'm just
asking what the current policies are." lack a certain credibility.




> Harassment Policy is
> another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums.



The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives.



> Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech.


I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to free
speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is
pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but
that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and
your government.



> I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better.


This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't for
getting to know people.



> It's
> harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
> specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
> the meantime, I'll continue asking questions,some of which may be
> inconvenient.


Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this
mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and
are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that can't
be dealt with through the usual project level channels.


> Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
> while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P


So not an editor?


--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks
> Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his
> wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger
> approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the
> projects.

Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated
with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly
don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues.

I understand your point, but these happen to be the issues that I'm
interested in. For example, I'm a father. I want my son to be able to
use Wikipedia and all the other projects. I'm not going to paste any
links to salacious content on Commons in to this thread, but suffice
it to say that many parents might be concerned about some of the
content that's up there now. And that's A-OK with me- I'm not down
with censorship- it just means that Commons is not a site for my
children. But there are solutions that don't involve censoring Commons
that would make it OK for my children to participate in such a
service. I'd like to discuss this stuff, and I can on WO. Is it OK to
discuss it here?

> Wil - the aversion to Wikipediocracy doesn't come from the mocking or trash
> talking. You haven't experienced the history of that site (and its
> predecessor) or the regular crowd there. Many of them are perfectly fine.
> Some of them have done some pretty seriously fucked up things, and some
> others have made themselves a persistent nuisance for no better reason than
> that they can. They have certainly exposed some major scandals, and brought
> insightful commentary to knotty problems. But please understand that those
> who choose to avoid them aren't simply too thin-skinned to take a critical
> comment or a bit of strong language.

Well, despite these past experiences, my own experience has been
pretty good (- the trash talk). A lot of interesting things are
brought up over there. I'm really wondering if everyone might just be
more comfortable discussing them on the Wikimedia mailing list. It's
the issues and constructive people on WO that I value, not the site
itself.

> Lastly, standard Internet comment on free speech: Your legal right to free
> speech is not a protection against criticism or a limit in any other way on
> what others can say to or about you.

Right. But why do you mention this?

Again, I'm looking for people to help me understand what's going on
here. Would you be one of those people?

Thanks!
,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active
> wikipediocracy memeber?

Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the
question that who asked it.

> You know where 4chan is I assume.

No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it?

> Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most
> compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally
> illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text)

I agree this is a bit confusing. I don't mean it in a legal sense-
which one might well argue that's the only sense it has- but in a more
social sense. I ask that if you don't like what I'm doing or saying,
that you take it out on me by excising your own right to free speech
by criticizing me, my actions, and my words- not on Lila through WP
politics.

> Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. We
> are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by thousands
> of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against
> whatever the internet can throw at them.

Yeap. It's my opinion. And I also think that Wikipedia is an amazing
achievement. Congrats and thanks to all of you!

> Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it
> what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement?

Sorry, what do you mean by "breath interaction"?

> Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on
> wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that "I'm just
> asking what the current policies are." lack a certain credibility.

Ah. Sorry. I was referring to the questions I asked on this list.
After discussing it there, I wanted to figure out what the current
policies were from the source. It was pretty hard to track down
everything on WP and WM, so thanks everyone for all the links! Do you
have the link to that thread? Maybe we should post it so that people
can see what you're talking about.

> The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives.

Are you saying that I should discuss it there instead?

> I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to free
> speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is
> pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but
> that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and
> your government.

Sure. I may not have used the right word. My apologies. I meant,
please don't hold my words and actions against Lila in any way. Feel
free to hold me to them, tho. :)

> This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't for
> getting to know people.

Ah. I guess I'll look for other places to get to know people. I'm
really sorry to have bothered you here.

> Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this
> mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and
> are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that can't
> be dealt with through the usual project level channels.

Yeah. It sounds like I really just barged in to the wrong place. Doh!

> So not an editor?

Actually, I'm editing some. I'm about to publish an article about the
modular sofa in the WMF office. It happens to be among my favorite
furniture designs, and now I've got a great pic to use in the article.
In addition, I plan to add some audio loops that I have made over the
years doing electronic music to Commons. It would be really cool for
people to have completely free loops to use in applications like
Garage Band and FL Studio. Stay tuned!

I guess I'll see y'all around somewhere else.
,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
Well, Wil, I caught your early posts there and was of the impression you
joined to protect the privacy of a member of your family. And out of
respect for that I declined to ask the question you seemed to be begging to
be asked.

You wouldn't be the first Wikimedian who felt that was a necessary action.

Risker


On 23 May 2014 21:36, Wil Sinclair <wllm@wllm.com> wrote:

> > Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active
> > wikipediocracy memeber?
>
> Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the
> question that who asked it.
>
> > You know where 4chan is I assume.
>
> No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it?
>
> > Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most
> > compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally
> > illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text)
>
> I agree this is a bit confusing. I don't mean it in a legal sense-
> which one might well argue that's the only sense it has- but in a more
> social sense. I ask that if you don't like what I'm doing or saying,
> that you take it out on me by excising your own right to free speech
> by criticizing me, my actions, and my words- not on Lila through WP
> politics.
>
> > Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point.
> We
> > are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by
> thousands
> > of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against
> > whatever the internet can throw at them.
>
> Yeap. It's my opinion. And I also think that Wikipedia is an amazing
> achievement. Congrats and thanks to all of you!
>
> > Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it
> > what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement?
>
> Sorry, what do you mean by "breath interaction"?
>
> > Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on
> > wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that "I'm just
> > asking what the current policies are." lack a certain credibility.
>
> Ah. Sorry. I was referring to the questions I asked on this list.
> After discussing it there, I wanted to figure out what the current
> policies were from the source. It was pretty hard to track down
> everything on WP and WM, so thanks everyone for all the links! Do you
> have the link to that thread? Maybe we should post it so that people
> can see what you're talking about.
>
> > The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives.
>
> Are you saying that I should discuss it there instead?
>
> > I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to
> free
> > speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is
> > pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but
> > that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and
> > your government.
>
> Sure. I may not have used the right word. My apologies. I meant,
> please don't hold my words and actions against Lila in any way. Feel
> free to hold me to them, tho. :)
>
> > This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't
> for
> > getting to know people.
>
> Ah. I guess I'll look for other places to get to know people. I'm
> really sorry to have bothered you here.
>
> > Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this
> > mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and
> > are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that
> can't
> > be dealt with through the usual project level channels.
>
> Yeah. It sounds like I really just barged in to the wrong place. Doh!
>
> > So not an editor?
>
> Actually, I'm editing some. I'm about to publish an article about the
> modular sofa in the WMF office. It happens to be among my favorite
> furniture designs, and now I've got a great pic to use in the article.
> In addition, I plan to add some audio loops that I have made over the
> years doing electronic music to Commons. It would be really cool for
> people to have completely free loops to use in applications like
> Garage Band and FL Studio. Stay tuned!
>
> I guess I'll see y'all around somewhere else.
> ,Wil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
Wil Sinclair wrote:
>> I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or
>>mocks Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping
>>into his wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking
>>the ginger approach to the most controversial issues that have
>>confronted the projects.
>
>Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated
>with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly
>don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues.

Hi.

From the interactions I've observed, you (Wil) are too smart to be doing
what you're doing, which makes some of your behavior all the more worrying.

You're willfully ignoring the consequences (real and potential) of your
actions. I'm worried about what it says when you have 18 posts to
wikimedia-l this month and your partner has one. I'm not even sure she's
subscribed to this mailing list, a big official forum, much less
registered and actively posting in forums such as Wikipediocracy.
But you are.

Even if you had no connection to Lila, what would you or anyone else
around here think about a contributor who suddenly starts wanting to get
involved and is immediately posting to Wikipediocracy and poking around
child protection issues (one of the most sensitive issues in the
community)? People are obviously going to be wary of someone like this.

Wikimedia is about creating free educational content. I look at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wllm> and I see you
have fewer than 50 edits to articles, and the last two are (minor) edits
to your partner's article. I'm pretty worried about what that says.

I'm not sure you're someone who wants to be involved in Wikimedia. Not
yet, anyway. There's a concern that you're simply someone whose partner
just got a job as the head of the Wikimedia Foundation and you want to dig
into the drama and other juicy parts. There's a concern that you're not
here to contribute Wiktionary entries or Wikisource transcriptions or
Wikipedia articles or other free educational content. Or perhaps put
another way, you have 110 posts to Wikipediocracy and you've been
registered there since May 2014. Meanwhile you have 79 total edits to the
English Wikipedia and you've been registered there since July 2006. This
is absolutely not a means of wiki-dick measuring or editcountitis, I'm
just looking at what you've been saying versus what you've been doing and
how it might affect both perceptions and the future reality.

These issues are swirling around in my head. Wikimedia is unusual, I
realize, but nowadays every time I hear about someone's partner getting
(overly) involved in that someone's work, I can't help but think of both
GitHub and its recent issues (real-life) and the relationship on "House of
Cards" (fiction). Real life and popular culture have their influence on
us, of course. :-)

Both of these (GitHub + "House of Cards") are obviously very extreme
examples, but given your (Wil) recent hyper-involvement, the juxtaposition
of it with your partner's lack of involvement, your on-wiki track record
(few substantive edits or involvement... and you've been editing your
partner's article?), and your off-wiki track record (Wikipediocracy and
here), I can't help but wonder what your role is here. I'm not sure the
Wikimedia Foundation has ever had or ever should have a consort.

Are you acting as a surrogate for your partner in forums that she doesn't
have time or inclination to participate in herself? Is this a good cop/bad
cop type of situation? I'm still not sure what to think. I imagine there
members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees that also still
aren't sure what to think. I hope the Board is paying close attention.

You seem to be fairly self-aware and proactive about combating the notion
that you have any influence over the Wikimedia Foundation, while
simultaneously wishing ("I'm a father and I want my kid...") to someday
make big changes to Wikimedia and its policies. It's a mixed bag around
here. It's very difficult to tell if you'll be a blessing or a curse.

I've read your replies and I understand what you're saying (succinctly
summarized by you as ",Wil!=Lila&&Wil!=WMF"), but what you're saying and
what your actions are saying seem to be in contrast. If you want to get
involved with Wikimedia, by all means, that would be great. But getting
involved means contributing to free educational content and the
surrounding movement. All you have to do is be bold and just click edit,
as they say. Until then, there will be a sizable contingency watching and
waiting for what will come of the decision to appoint your partner as
Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation and what her role and yours
mean to the future of Wikimedia.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
On 05/23/2014 07:06 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.

I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has
held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English
Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some
day).

Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a
diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes
insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects.
On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led
to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of
the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the
movement's gaffes.

This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration
Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear
to the ground" as it were.

The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The
vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a
desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing
wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite,
revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more
prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the
on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the
malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in
their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need
to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no
regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries.
Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to
harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in
the projects.

(And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of
"private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level
of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so
what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on
those sites).

The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile
and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You
may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation,
concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You
can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect
you.

Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to
be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but
that's a side effect of their effort to dig up "dirt" to throw at their
enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will
reach "mainstream" venues soon enough if it was legitimate.

So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those
venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the
movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a
very bad idea.

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has
> held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English
> Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some
> day).

Thanks. I appreciate any advice.

> Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a
> diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes
> insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects.
> On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led
> to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of
> the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the
> movement's gaffes.

I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd
like to find out as much as I can about the movement.

> This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration
> Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear
> to the ground" as it were.
>
> The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The
> vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a
> desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing
> wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite,
> revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more
> prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the
> on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the
> malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in
> their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need
> to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no
> regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries.
> Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to
> harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in
> the projects.

Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems
that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution,
but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it
important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm
trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than
the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there,
too, for the reasons you've mentioned above.

> (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of
> "private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level
> of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so
> what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on
> those sites).

Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very
graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the
members further questions about potential threats to my family once
Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly
productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I
don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to
enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have
you ever been on those boards?

> The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile
> and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You
> may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation,
> concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You
> can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect
> you.

Well, we'll have to see how I fare. It certainly hasn't bothered me so
far. For that matter, some of the less-than-friendly responses on this
list haven't bothered me either. I've been told many times that I'm
persistently positive. ;)

> Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to
> be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but
> that's a side effect of their effort to dig up "dirt" to throw at their
> enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will
> reach "mainstream" venues soon enough if it was legitimate.

But what if this problem weren't discovered and fixed? Couldn't it
turn in to a larger problem down the road? If we all work on our
problems in good faith, a few inevitable mistakes like we've seen in
the past won't matter; the positive news should far outweigh the
negative.

> So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those
> venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the
> movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a
> very bad idea.
>
> -- Marc

Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to participate there,
because it happens to work for me. I realize it's not for everyone.
For example, with all the trash talking on there, it certainly isn't
for Lila. As I've mentioned, we are two *very* different people. I'm
looking forward to working with you on WP, tho. I'll try to drop by
your talk page to say Hi soon. Ta's!

,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> From the interactions I've observed, you (Wil) are too smart to be doing
> what you're doing, which makes some of your behavior all the more worrying.

Thanks!

> You're willfully ignoring the consequences (real and potential) of your
> actions. I'm worried about what it says when you have 18 posts to
> wikimedia-l this month and your partner has one. I'm not even sure she's
> subscribed to this mailing list, a big official forum, much less
> registered and actively posting in forums such as Wikipediocracy.
> But you are.

You should ask Lila directly about her participation here. I'm sure
she'd love to here from you.

> Even if you had no connection to Lila, what would you or anyone else
> around here think about a contributor who suddenly starts wanting to get
> involved and is immediately posting to Wikipediocracy and poking around
> child protection issues (one of the most sensitive issues in the
> community)? People are obviously going to be wary of someone like this.

I'm sure some people will be. I think that some other people may also
welcome a perspective that isn't political. I've heard from many
people in the WP community, both on this list and off, who tell me
that they have been following what I've been saying on WO and here and
appreciate what I'm doing. For some reason, they don't feel that their
perspectives would be welcome here or on some other WP forums. :( Now
that's something I think we can all agree is a problem worth fixing.

> Wikimedia is about creating free educational content. I look at
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wllm> and I see you
> have fewer than 50 edits to articles, and the last two are (minor) edits
> to your partner's article. I'm pretty worried about what that says.

Yeap. I got the business from the Wikipediocracy guys on that, too. If
you'll look at the edits, one was to fix a grammatical mistake and the
other changed Lila's art major to the correct name. Immediately after
committing I realized that this probably wasn't kosher, so you'll see
a comment from me in the talk page asking if I should revert them. I
learned that it was better to give information on the talk page and
let other people edit that don't have a COI as they see fit. But I
should have checked the COI policy first, and I've since read through
it. I apologize to the entire community for that. I will try to do
better.

> I'm not sure you're someone who wants to be involved in Wikimedia. Not
> yet, anyway. There's a concern that you're simply someone whose partner
> just got a job as the head of the Wikimedia Foundation and you want to dig
> into the drama and other juicy parts. There's a concern that you're not
> here to contribute Wiktionary entries or Wikisource transcriptions or
> Wikipedia articles or other free educational content. Or perhaps put
> another way, you have 110 posts to Wikipediocracy and you've been
> registered there since May 2014. Meanwhile you have 79 total edits to the
> English Wikipedia and you've been registered there since July 2006. This
> is absolutely not a means of wiki-dick measuring or editcountitis, I'm
> just looking at what you've been saying versus what you've been doing and
> how it might affect both perceptions and the future reality.

When you say "a concern," do you mean a concern that you have or that
someone else has? It's no biggie, but I think it's nice to know whom
I'm addressing when I reply to questions. But answer I will,
regardless. :) Of course I got more interested in Wikipedia with
Lila's appointment. Right now I'll be focussing on Commons for a bit,
because the sounds library has so much potential. I'm not really sure
if you're comparing the number of Wikipediocracy posts to Wikipedia
edits, but they are two very different sites. But as I get more
involved here and on the wiki, you'll probably see that post count go
up. Let me know if I'm not meeting an mission-critical KPI, tho. ;)

> These issues are swirling around in my head. Wikimedia is unusual, I
> realize, but nowadays every time I hear about someone's partner getting
> (overly) involved in that someone's work, I can't help but think of both
> GitHub and its recent issues (real-life) and the relationship on "House of
> Cards" (fiction). Real life and popular culture have their influence on
> us, of course. :-)

I don't know anything about House of Cards. I'm happy to say that
there is more attention being paid across Silicon Valley to making
more welcoming and comfortable environments for women in technology.
I'm sure the WP community has been considering some of the same issues
for WP itself.

> Both of these (GitHub + "House of Cards") are obviously very extreme
> examples, but given your (Wil) recent hyper-involvement, the juxtaposition
> of it with your partner's lack of involvement, your on-wiki track record
> (few substantive edits or involvement... and you've been editing your
> partner's article?), and your off-wiki track record (Wikipediocracy and
> here), I can't help but wonder what your role is here. I'm not sure the
> Wikimedia Foundation has ever had or ever should have a consort.

Do you mean that the Board of Trustees should only consider single
people for the role of ED?

> Are you acting as a surrogate for your partner in forums that she doesn't
> have time or inclination to participate in herself? Is this a good cop/bad
> cop type of situation? I'm still not sure what to think. I imagine there
> members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees that also still
> aren't sure what to think. I hope the Board is paying close attention.

The simple answer is no and no. The WO folks also speculated a fair
amount on what my motives might be. I'm afraid the story is more
boring than the speculation; I'm just like this, and it's got nothing
to do with Lila or the WMF.

I hope the Board is paying close attention to everything that's going
on in the community. I have no idea whether any of the trustees are
paying more attention to me than anybody else. I guess you could bring
me to their attention if you think it's worth their time.

> You seem to be fairly self-aware and proactive about combating the notion
> that you have any influence over the Wikimedia Foundation, while
> simultaneously wishing ("I'm a father and I want my kid...") to someday
> make big changes to Wikimedia and its policies. It's a mixed bag around
> here. It's very difficult to tell if you'll be a blessing or a curse.

Can't I be both? :) I'm very glad that you're asking these questions.
It is an unusual situation, and any thinking person would be wondering
these kinds of things. The fact is that I can't convince you either
way with what I say now. You'll get to know me- and hopefully, I you-
over the next few months through my actions. I ask only one thing of
you and the WP community in the meantime: please just -try- to think
of me as my own person as much as possible. Because, ultimately,
that's what I am.

> I've read your replies and I understand what you're saying (succinctly
> summarized by you as ",Wil!=Lila&&Wil!=WMF"), but what you're saying and
> what your actions are saying seem to be in contrast. If you want to get
> involved with Wikimedia, by all means, that would be great. But getting
> involved means contributing to free educational content and the
> surrounding movement. All you have to do is be bold and just click edit,
> as they say. Until then, there will be a sizable contingency watching and
> waiting for what will come of the decision to appoint your partner as
> Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation and what her role and yours
> mean to the future of Wikimedia.

Agreed. Talk is cheap. I've been working on some sound stuff this
week, and you've inspired me to start uploading it this weekend.
Thanks!

,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair <wllm@wllm.com> wrote:
> Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated
> with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly
> don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues
...

If this were true, then Wil could have taken part in discussion on
Wikipediocracy with a throw-away anonymous account to educate himself
on the culture there. I am sure that Wil and Lila know how to keep an
internet account anonymous, or they can ask someone on their personal
network who does know.

To parody a little, but not much, "Hello, I'm the partner of the new
CEO of the WMF and I would like to ask you about what you think of the
WMF projects... Oh, please pretend that I have nothing to do with the
CEO of the WMF." No, that just does not add up.

As someone partial, due to the actions of some participants of 'that
website' to deride my life as a gay man, my view is that Lila is
actively losing good faith, before she has managed to deliver anything
for our movement, by not having a word with her partner to stop him
playing silly and potentially destructive games using her name as if
he were the charitable "First husband" playing ambassador.

Wil has a right to free speech (in the UK we have similar law, it
amounts to "meh, you are free to make an arse out yourself"). This
ensures his right to be free to irretrievably cock up Lila's
reputation in the eyes of the Wikimedia community's most active and
productive volunteers.

If Lila is going to be good at managing politics within our movement,
now would be an excellent time to start demonstrating it, rather than
pretending she does not know about the games Wil is playing within the
Wikimedia movement that she is being handsomely paid to support.

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
under his skin...

What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a
point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's
not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware
of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or
is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if
he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to
engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she
decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along
the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar
with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they
"fire" him?? Some job they'd be walking into!

Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up
with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF
for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years'
experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take
on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the "grease the
squeakiest wheel" approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can
chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple
years.

Pete


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair <wllm@wllm.com> wrote:

> > I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has
> > held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English
> > Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some
> > day).
>
> Thanks. I appreciate any advice.
>
> > Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a
> > diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes
> > insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects.
> > On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led
> > to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of
> > the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the
> > movement's gaffes.
>
> I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd
> like to find out as much as I can about the movement.
>
> > This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration
> > Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear
> > to the ground" as it were.
> >
> > The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The
> > vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a
> > desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing
> > wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite,
> > revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more
> > prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the
> > on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the
> > malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in
> > their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need
> > to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no
> > regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries.
> > Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to
> > harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in
> > the projects.
>
> Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems
> that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
> motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution,
> but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it
> important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm
> trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than
> the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there,
> too, for the reasons you've mentioned above.
>
> > (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of
> > "private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level
> > of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so
> > what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on
> > those sites).
>
> Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very
> graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the
> members further questions about potential threats to my family once
> Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly
> productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I
> don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to
> enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have
> you ever been on those boards?
>
> > The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile
> > and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You
> > may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation,
> > concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You
> > can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect
> > you.
>
> Well, we'll have to see how I fare. It certainly hasn't bothered me so
> far. For that matter, some of the less-than-friendly responses on this
> list haven't bothered me either. I've been told many times that I'm
> persistently positive. ;)
>
> > Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to
> > be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but
> > that's a side effect of their effort to dig up "dirt" to throw at their
> > enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will
> > reach "mainstream" venues soon enough if it was legitimate.
>
> But what if this problem weren't discovered and fixed? Couldn't it
> turn in to a larger problem down the road? If we all work on our
> problems in good faith, a few inevitable mistakes like we've seen in
> the past won't matter; the positive news should far outweigh the
> negative.
>
> > So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those
> > venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the
> > movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a
> > very bad idea.
> >
> > -- Marc
>
> Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to participate there,
> because it happens to work for me. I realize it's not for everyone.
> For example, with all the trash talking on there, it certainly isn't
> for Lila. As I've mentioned, we are two *very* different people. I'm
> looking forward to working with you on WP, tho. I'll try to drop by
> your talk page to say Hi soon. Ta's!
>
> ,Wil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
On 24/05/2014 03:31, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>>"*On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there
has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and
some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing
out the movement's gaffes".

Thanks :)

>>"The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation.
The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a
desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing
wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite,
revenge or simple outright malice.

(1) This point has already been made, but it bears repeating. If the
criticism is valid, as you seem to agree, why does the *motive* matter?
(2) How do you know what the motives are? Are you a psychologist or a
criminologist? My experience of WO is that many of the participants are
driven by a sense of injustice at perceived mistreatment or unfairness
on Wikipedia. That's just a speculation of course.

>>It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are
people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it
is the rallying point of the malcontent.

This is the case with most protest movements. If enough people think
something is going wrong, and if they see no way of fixing things
through 'official channels', then they will find some other place to rally.

>>The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their
"investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn
over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard
for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries.

When the problem involves conflict of interest, i.e. when someone is
using an anonymous account on Wikipedia to promote some agenda or
interest, it is obviously very difficult to avoid revealing identity or
interest - particularly when it involves people massaging articles about
themselves. When WO does this in the published articles it makes every
effort to address the principle involved, rather than the person.

E


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> If this were true, then Wil could have taken part in discussion on
> Wikipediocracy with a throw-away anonymous account to educate himself
> on the culture there. I am sure that Wil and Lila know how to keep an
> internet account anonymous, or they can ask someone on their personal
> network who does know.
>
> To parody a little, but not much, "Hello, I'm the partner of the new
> CEO of the WMF and I would like to ask you about what you think of the
> WMF projects... Oh, please pretend that I have nothing to do with the
> CEO of the WMF." No, that just does not add up.

What would happen if I didn't say it? I'd probably be considered
deceitful for *not* telling people upfront. :) It's worked pretty well
to tell people what they believe they need to know about me from the
get-go and then convince them that I'm my own person with my words and
actions. I can also see some arguments for your approach, however.

> As someone partial, due to the actions of some participants of 'that
> website' to deride my life as a gay man, my view is that Lila is
> actively losing good faith, before she has managed to deliver anything
> for our movement, by not having a word with her partner to stop him
> playing silly and potentially destructive games using her name as if
> he were the charitable "First husband" playing ambassador.

Could you please tell me more about any potentially homophobic
comments that have been made on Wikipediocracy? Here or by email,
whichever you think is most appropriate. My email is wllm@wllm.com. I
want no part of any site that practices bigotry.

I think we can settle the whole "'First husband' playing ambassador"
thing. I'm not an ambassador for anybody. I am a person who values his
individuality. I think that's pretty common in the WP community. In
fact, I'm not even legally Lila's husband, so technically I'm not
First anything. :) And that's a-ok with me. I just ask for a chance to
show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
that chance?

> Wil has a right to free speech (in the UK we have similar law, it
> amounts to "meh, you are free to make an arse out yourself"). This
> ensures his right to be free to irretrievably cock up Lila's
> reputation in the eyes of the Wikimedia community's most active and
> productive volunteers.

If the larger WP community believes that my actions and words should
be weighed heavily on Lila as an ED, then that's not about me or
anything I have done. That's about what the community believes makes
for a great leader. I personally think that such an attitude would be
a great injustice to one of the greatest leaders the WMF could hope to
find. But if this is really the way the WP community works, then I
think each and every one reading this should ask themselves: "Is this
the kind of community I want?"

> If Lila is going to be good at managing politics within our movement,
> now would be an excellent time to start demonstrating it, rather than
> pretending she does not know about the games Wil is playing within the
> Wikimedia movement that she is being handsomely paid to support.

I don't know about Lila, but I think a lot of Wikipedians are pretty
much done with the politics. They seem to be more interested in
spending their time working on Wikipedia itself.

Thanks much for the feedback, tho. I'd really appreciate it if you
could get back to me about any prejudice you've encountered here or on
WO. I think it goes without saying that this is definitely *not*
something we want anywhere in our community.
,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
> Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
> one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
> under his skin...

Hi Pete. What are you referring to here?

Thanks.
,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.

If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's
a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.

Best.
,Wil

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
> one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
> under his skin...
>
> What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a
> point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's
> not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware
> of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or
> is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if
> he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to
> engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she
> decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along
> the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar
> with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they
> "fire" him?? Some job they'd be walking into!
>
> Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up
> with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF
> for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years'
> experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take
> on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the "grease the
> squeakiest wheel" approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can
> chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple
> years.
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair <wllm@wllm.com> wrote:
>
>> > I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has
>> > held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English
>> > Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some
>> > day).
>>
>> Thanks. I appreciate any advice.
>>
>> > Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a
>> > diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes
>> > insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects.
>> > On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led
>> > to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of
>> > the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the
>> > movement's gaffes.
>>
>> I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd
>> like to find out as much as I can about the movement.
>>
>> > This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration
>> > Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear
>> > to the ground" as it were.
>> >
>> > The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The
>> > vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a
>> > desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing
>> > wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite,
>> > revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more
>> > prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the
>> > on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the
>> > malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in
>> > their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need
>> > to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no
>> > regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries.
>> > Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to
>> > harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in
>> > the projects.
>>
>> Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems
>> that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
>> motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution,
>> but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it
>> important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm
>> trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than
>> the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there,
>> too, for the reasons you've mentioned above.
>>
>> > (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of
>> > "private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level
>> > of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so
>> > what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on
>> > those sites).
>>
>> Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very
>> graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the
>> members further questions about potential threats to my family once
>> Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly
>> productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I
>> don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to
>> enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have
>> you ever been on those boards?
>>
>> > The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile
>> > and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited mercilessly. You
>> > may *think* you can abstract that poison away from your participation,
>> > concentrating on the buried legitimate claims that can be found. You
>> > can't. It will grate on you, imperceptibly at first, but it will affect
>> > you.
>>
>> Well, we'll have to see how I fare. It certainly hasn't bothered me so
>> far. For that matter, some of the less-than-friendly responses on this
>> list haven't bothered me either. I've been told many times that I'm
>> persistently positive. ;)
>>
>> > Sure, they'll occasionally dig up something that desperately needed to
>> > be found and fixed - giving us the opportunity to right some wrong - but
>> > that's a side effect of their effort to dig up "dirt" to throw at their
>> > enemies. In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will
>> > reach "mainstream" venues soon enough if it was legitimate.
>>
>> But what if this problem weren't discovered and fixed? Couldn't it
>> turn in to a larger problem down the road? If we all work on our
>> problems in good faith, a few inevitable mistakes like we've seen in
>> the past won't matter; the positive news should far outweigh the
>> negative.
>>
>> > So yeah. You're of course perfectly *allowed* to participate in those
>> > venues, but you shouldn't be surprised if that makes many in the
>> > movement weary as - historically - that has proven over and over to be a
>> > very bad idea.
>> >
>> > -- Marc
>>
>> Thanks again for the advice. I will continue to participate there,
>> because it happens to work for me. I realize it's not for everyone.
>> For example, with all the trash talking on there, it certainly isn't
>> for Lila. As I've mentioned, we are two *very* different people. I'm
>> looking forward to working with you on WP, tho. I'll try to drop by
>> your talk page to say Hi soon. Ta's!
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@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
> Wikimedia-l@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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair <wllm@wllm.com> wrote:
...
> I just ask for a chance to
> show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
> my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
> that chance?
...

Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you
have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a
collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons,
and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative
experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying
to help achieve the aims of our projects.

At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer
rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and
publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy
issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the
Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila
were hoping for.

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy [ In reply to ]
>> I just ask for a chance to
>> show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
>> my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
>> that chance?
> ...
>
> Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you
> have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a
> collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons,
> and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative
> experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying
> to help achieve the aims of our projects.

OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with
you if I do audio instead of photos or videos?

> At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer
> rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and
> publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy
> issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the
> Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila
> were hoping for.

FWIW, her title is Executive Director, not CEO. Honestly, I'm less
worried about the impression I'm giving you than your getting to know
the real me. I'm very much looking forward to that.

,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3  View All