[Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

Ad Huikeshoven-3
We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim
to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.

Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an
user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some
are vocal.

Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That
can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on
meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.

There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for
Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People
who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities
versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead,
and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]

Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity,
inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that
have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as
"We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers
preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."

The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.

The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we
ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and
participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and
support people that have been left out by structures of power and
privilege?"

Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn
answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and
from others as well.

I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the
working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope
to see a lot of you there.

Kind regards,

Ad Huikeshoven

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
[2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

Paulo Santos Perneta
How is banning an user for 1 year for secrete reasons a "bold step"?
What's the educative value of it? How does it advance any of those
strategic objectives you mention there?

Paulo

Ad Huikeshoven <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia domingo, 16/06/2019
à(s) 22:03:

> We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim
> to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
>
> Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an
> user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some
> are vocal.
>
> Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That
> can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on
> meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
>
> There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for
> Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People
> who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities
> versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead,
> and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
>
> Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity,
> inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that
> have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as
> "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers
> preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
> have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
>
> The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we
> ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and
> participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and
> support people that have been left out by structures of power and
> privilege?"
>
> Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn
> answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and
> from others as well.
>
> I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the
> working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope
> to see a lot of you there.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
> [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Ad Huikeshoven-3
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven <[hidden email]> wrote:

> <snip>
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
> have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
>
>
Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not
sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and
direct the Wikimedia movement? Or is its role to provide support and
services to the movement's contributors, who are (collectively) its
leaders? Should it impose change on projects based on its own determination
of need, or respond to needs identified by project communities?

My impression is that the WMF views the noisy contributors who participate
in meta discussions (and, incidentally, vote for Board elections) as a
necessary evil -- and its own role as being the guarantor of the best
interests of the readers, whom the movement is intended to benefit. Their
sense of the gravity of any controversy among insiders is always tempered
by the conviction that readers are unaffected, and will ultimately benefit.
Since readers are by definition a group who cannot react to internal
politics, they have no voice to criticize any decisions taken in their
name.

I think this becomes the true basis of the anger and resistance on the
English Wikipedia: *the sense that the WMF has declared that it is
leading now, instead of supporting*. That's also the message in comments
that assert the WMF has the authority to do what it likes, and no
obligation to explain or justify its decisions. Each time the WMF has taken
similar decisions the reaction has been similar, but as I mentioned in a
previous post... They are not learning the appropriate lessons.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Ask yourself why you do not get it as you describe them as "noisy". There
is a photo of a presentation at the London Wikimania going round that
describes it well. It is a long time coming and the chickens have come home
to roost.

Indeed they are not learning the appropriate lessons but they is you.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 00:02, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year.
> They
> > have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
> >
> >
> Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not
> sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and
> direct the Wikimedia movement? Or is its role to provide support and
> services to the movement's contributors, who are (collectively) its
> leaders? Should it impose change on projects based on its own determination
> of need, or respond to needs identified by project communities?
>
> My impression is that the WMF views the noisy contributors who participate
> in meta discussions (and, incidentally, vote for Board elections) as a
> necessary evil -- and its own role as being the guarantor of the best
> interests of the readers, whom the movement is intended to benefit. Their
> sense of the gravity of any controversy among insiders is always tempered
> by the conviction that readers are unaffected, and will ultimately benefit.
> Since readers are by definition a group who cannot react to internal
> politics, they have no voice to criticize any decisions taken in their
> name.
>
> I think this becomes the true basis of the anger and resistance on the
> English Wikipedia: *the sense that the WMF has declared that it is
> leading now, instead of supporting*. That's also the message in comments
> that assert the WMF has the authority to do what it likes, and no
> obligation to explain or justify its decisions. Each time the WMF has taken
> similar decisions the reaction has been similar, but as I mentioned in a
> previous post... They are not learning the appropriate lessons.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

Yaroslav Blanter
In reply to this post by Ad Huikeshoven-3
I went ahead and offered my time to participate in the strategy process. My
offer was rejected.. I do not think I will ever do it again.

I an afraid WMF is up to some surprises when they publish the 2030 Strategy
which was not in any way coordinated with the communities, and then see
that the communities, for whatever reason, are not interested in
enthusiastically embracing it.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 11:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim
> to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
>
> Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an
> user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some
> are vocal.
>
> Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That
> can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on
> meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
>
> There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for
> Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People
> who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities
> versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead,
> and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
>
> Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity,
> inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that
> have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as
> "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers
> preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
> have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
>
> The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we
> ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and
> participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and
> support people that have been left out by structures of power and
> privilege?"
>
> Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn
> answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and
> from others as well.
>
> I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the
> working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope
> to see a lot of you there.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
> [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Ad Huikeshoven-3
" Previously a strategic direction has been agreed."
Not by that many. It is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean whatever the WMF want it to mean and used as a justification for a wide range of policies and actions that were not obviously specifically discussed. This was mentioned at the time and we were told that this would not happen. Maybe it is already happening.
Cheers,
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ad Huikeshoven
Sent: 16 June 2019 23:03
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim
to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.

Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an
user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some
are vocal.

Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That
can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on
meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.

There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for
Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People
who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities
versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead,
and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]

Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity,
inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that
have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as
"We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers
preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."

The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.

The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we
ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and
participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and
support people that have been left out by structures of power and
privilege?"

Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn
answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and
from others as well.

I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the
working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope
to see a lot of you there.

Kind regards,

Ad Huikeshoven

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
[2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

Paulo Santos Perneta
What is that "strategic direction", and where was it agreed?

Paulo

Peter Southwood <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
17/06/2019 à(s) 08:20:

> " Previously a strategic direction has been agreed."
> Not by that many. It is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean
> whatever the WMF want it to mean and used as a justification for a wide
> range of policies and actions that were not obviously specifically
> discussed. This was mentioned at the time and we were told that this would
> not happen. Maybe it is already happening.
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Ad Huikeshoven
> Sent: 16 June 2019 23:03
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities
>
> We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim
> to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
>
> Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an
> user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some
> are vocal.
>
> Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That
> can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on
> meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
>
> There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for
> Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People
> who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities
> versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead,
> and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
>
> Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity,
> inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that
> have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as
> "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers
> preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
> have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
>
> The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we
> ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and
> participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and
> support people that have been left out by structures of power and
> privilege?"
>
> Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn
> answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and
> from others as well.
>
> I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the
> working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope
> to see a lot of you there.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
> [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
>
> Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not
> sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and
> direct the Wikimedia movement?


Personally, I don't think the WMF knows the answer to this, either in
practice, or what they want.

We are in a sort of weird situation where "the WMF" often feel they don't
have any power because "the community" won't let them exercise it, and/or
they (as the WMF) don't feel they have enough mandate or are representative
enough to do things. At the same time, most of "the community" feels they
don't have any significant power or influence because the WMF makes the
real decisions and no-one is ever going to pay attention to them, the
individual community member.

Part of the reason the WMF has outsourced much of its long-term planning to
the Movement Strategy process is because it isn't confident it has the
mandate to actually make decisions like this.

Or is its role to provide support and
> services to the movement's contributors, who are (collectively) its
> leaders? Should it impose change on projects based on its own determination
> of need, or respond to needs identified by project communities?
>

I think really it depends on the quality of leadership provided by movement
contributors. Indeed, when Wikipedia was first set up the whole idea was
about empowering everyone to make decisions and assuming that good-faith
contributors would work issues out between them. This has turned out to not
work in many important areas, for reasons that I won't attempt to go into
here (and no, it's not all the WMF's fault)


> I think this becomes the true basis of the anger and resistance on the
> English Wikipedia: *the sense that the WMF has declared that it is
> leading now, instead of supporting*. That's also the message in comments
> that assert the WMF has the authority to do what it likes, and no
> obligation to explain or justify its decisions. Each time the WMF has taken
> similar decisions the reaction has been similar, but as I mentioned in a
> previous post... They are not learning the appropriate lessons.


I think you have correctly identified why so many very active Wikipedians
get so frustrated with the WMF. I am not sure how much light that sheds on
the right solution, though.

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>