[Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
196 messages Options
1 ... 78910
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling us
that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What is
thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped in
the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep
others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution that
involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was threatened
that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).

English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".

Keeping things as they were is not an option.
Thanks,
        GerardM

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >
> >
> >  Also, I believe that the
> > near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
> > that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
>
>
> I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument
> can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a modern
> Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
> humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering achievements,
> it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released from
> the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let that
> toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including Wikipedia.
> The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
> problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
>
> Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has survived
> and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction. So
> maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the forces
> that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community of
> the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical realization
> that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Adrian Raddatz
Some training and assessment might be useful.
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Adrian Raddatz
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 3:56 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Defining the problem and solutions is easy too. Getting the core editing
community to agree to any change is the difficult part.

Problems:
- Discussions favour the loudest voice and the people who refuse to walk
away. Wiki people often say that there are no barriers to participation,
but if you have anything better to do with your time, arguing over mundane
article details while being attacked/insulted by the other side becomes
undesirable very quickly.
- Admins are often some of the worst offenders.
- ANI follows none of the best practices for dispute resolution.

For solutions:
- Hold people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not
they are correct.
- And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we
can change or amend things if they don't work.

Adrian Raddatz


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>
> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz,
> zzzzz"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>    1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>    to blocks.
>    2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>    creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>    them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>    3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> > the
> > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > en.wp
> > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>


_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Thomas Townsend
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Nathan

> Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true,
> and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier
> place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with
> the critical mass of human participants that this project needs. Have you
> been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national
> election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute
> some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human
> nature?

Nathan

I think we in agreement that people en masse rarely organise
themselves effectively to achieve a common goal.  The examples you
cite, together with Wikipedia and the other projects demonstrate that
well.  The solution, then is not for some attempt to tweak the culture
so that the desired effective organisation happens spontaneously, but
for an external structure to be imposed.   There are models for
organising tens of thousands of people to create, curate and
disseminate knowledge -- universities, schools, libraries, academies,
leaned societies, ...

The Turnip

_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Pine W
Hi Pine,
I more often find myself agreeing with you than not, but there are often nuanced differences in that opinion, which is generally not a problem.
I agree that the board could have expressed their consensus opinion differently, but the fact that it is a consensus opinion will necessarily affect the expression, and what they have said fits into the range I find acceptable.  I maintain that the Board is not the nanny of WMF and that where the WMF does something surprising the board is not necessarily culpable. This is one of those cases. Opinions obviously vary considerably here, from those who think WMF handled it well to those who will not be satisfied until heads roll. That again is Wikipedia, and Nathan expresses the situation quite well. The board is accountable, but not necessarily at fault for failing to prevent this case. It is now their duty to fix it, and I support then in such efforts. We still don't have enough information to make a fair judgement on WMF. They will not give it to us, so must not be surprised when a history of blunders is held against them. We must necessarily judge on the available evidence, and we will pass judgement. It is what we do all the time on Wikipedia, it is a necessary part of building an encyclopedia. They do good work too, but that good, as Shakespeare said, is oft interred with their bones.
As you say, community members are not servants, and I agree with the rest of that paragraph.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: 05 July 2019 01:11
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Hi Peter,

My view is that accountability should start at the top of an organization.

I was trying to think of a better word than "supervising" for the concept
that I had in mind. After further consideration, I think that "governing"
would have been a better choice.

I am disappointed by the WMF Board's tone and its lack of apology. In the
Board's words, "The Board views this as part of a much-needed community
debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has
caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move
forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities." In
other words, the Board thinks that the "considerable disruption" is
acceptable, perhaps even good in the big picture. Also, the Board
apologizes for nothing.

I believe that community members are not servants, and are not okay to
ignore, mistreat, or throw away casually. Also, I believe that the
near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 00:32 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen.
> People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
>  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
>
> I hope that your day is going well.
>
> There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this
> thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
>
> As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=904149076&oldid=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=904552644&oldid=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&diff=904607134&oldid=904605950
> >
> .
>
> My personal comments follow.
>
> I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
> statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
> staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
>
> I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
> apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
> community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
> volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the
> words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from
> the WMF Board.
>
> In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on
> supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
>
> I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the
> communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and
> should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to
> deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the
> communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating
> unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down
> social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain
> from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities
> in our efforts to improve ourselves.
>
> I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from
> WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
>
> Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding
> these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful
> approach in the future.
>
> Writing solely in a personal capacity,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
That "arcane lore" has resulted in the largest educational work ever
produced by humanity, and free for everyone both as in speech and as in
beer.

So I think we need to consider carefully before radically changing it. It
has worked, and worked unimaginably well, for most of two decades. That's
not to say it can't still be improved, but the proof is in the results. If
the English Wikipedia were badly broken, it wouldn't be a fixture of modern
life.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 11:54 PM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling us
> that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What is
> thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped in
> the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep
> others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
> Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
> arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
> problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
> and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution that
> involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
> in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
> not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was threatened
> that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
>
> English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
> when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
> is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
> does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
>
> Keeping things as they were is not an option.
> Thanks,
>         GerardM
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >  Also, I believe that the
> > > near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
> > > that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >
> >
> >
> > I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument
> > can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a
> modern
> > Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
> > humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering
> achievements,
> > it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released
> from
> > the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let
> that
> > toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including
> Wikipedia.
> > The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
> > problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
> >
> > Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has
> survived
> > and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction.
> So
> > maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the
> forces
> > that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community
> of
> > the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical
> realization
> > that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers-2
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
"football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
get it done with "populated places" and the like too.

NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
"article".

As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
show sourcing immediately.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>
> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz,
> zzzzz"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>    1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>    to blocks.
>    2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>    creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>    them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>    3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> > the
> > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > en.wp
> > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
It isn't magic.  People have studied how and why it was successful and
other projects were not.

Wikipedia 2019 isn't the same as Wikipedia 2001.  We've made lots of
changes that we thought at the time were radical along the way.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:01 AM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That "arcane lore" has resulted in the largest educational work ever
> produced by humanity, and free for everyone both as in speech and as in
> beer.
>
> So I think we need to consider carefully before radically changing it. It
> has worked, and worked unimaginably well, for most of two decades. That's
> not to say it can't still be improved, but the proof is in the results. If
> the English Wikipedia were badly broken, it wouldn't be a fixture of modern
> life.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 11:54 PM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling
> us
> > that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What
> is
> > thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped
> in
> > the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep
> > others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
> > Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
> > arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
> > problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
> > and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution
> that
> > involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
> > in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
> > not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was
> threatened
> > that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
> >
> > English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
> > when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
> > is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
> > does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
> >
> > Keeping things as they were is not an option.
> > Thanks,
> >         GerardM
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Also, I believe that the
> > > > near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care,
> and
> > > > that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An
> argument
> > > can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a
> > modern
> > > Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
> > > humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering
> > achievements,
> > > it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released
> > from
> > > the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let
> > that
> > > toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including
> > Wikipedia.
> > > The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
> > > problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
> > >
> > > Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has
> > survived
> > > and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction.
> > So
> > > maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the
> > forces
> > > that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the
> community
> > of
> > > the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical
> > realization
> > > that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Pierre-Selim
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
How open minded ...

That said can people participating to this thread respect the soft limit of
this mailing list, i.e. this is not a chat, and I'm pretty sure your
answers can wait 24 hours.

Thank you.

Le ven. 5 juil. 2019 à 12:16, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
> and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
>
> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> "article".
>
> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> show sourcing immediately.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> editing
> > environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> > historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
> >
> > On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> > would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz,
> > zzzzz"
> >
> > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> > for, among other things:
> >
> >
> >    1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >    to blocks.
> >    2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >    creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >    them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >    3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >
> >
> > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >
> > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> > nuanced and diplomatic.
> >
> > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> > was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> > Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> > But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> > the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> > support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> > empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> > where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> > an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> > enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> > trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
> What I
> > > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and
> foremost
> > > the
> > > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > > en.wp
> > > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >      GerardM
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
This is sarcasm, right? Right?

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
> and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
>
> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> "article".
>
> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> show sourcing immediately.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> editing
> > environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> > historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
> >
> > On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> > would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz,
> > zzzzz"
> >
> > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> > for, among other things:
> >
> >
> >    1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >    to blocks.
> >    2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >    creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >    them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >    3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >
> >
> > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >
> > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> > nuanced and diplomatic.
> >
> > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> > was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> > Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> > But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> > the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> > support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> > empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> > where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> > an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> > enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> > trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
> What I
> > > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and
> foremost
> > > the
> > > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > > en.wp
> > > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >      GerardM
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Todd Allen
I wish that it were. Unfortunately, it is actually the case.

Todd

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:42 AM Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is sarcasm, right? Right?
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn
> Pokemon,
> > and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> > "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> > get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
> >
> > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> > "article".
> >
> > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> > show sourcing immediately.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> > editing
> > > environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> > > historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
> at
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
> > >
> > > On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
> we
> > > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the
> last
> > > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private
> information,
> > > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing
> arbs. I
> > > would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> > > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
> zzzz,
> > > zzzzz"
> > >
> > > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have
> argued
> > > for, among other things:
> > >
> > >
> > >    1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so
> quickly
> > >    to blocks.
> > >    2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> > >    creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> > find
> > >    them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> > >    3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> > edits.
> > >
> > >
> > > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> > example
> > > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
> conflict
> > > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> > where
> > > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit
> one
> > > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> > deletionists
> > > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> > >
> > > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> > people
> > > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> > versions
> > > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in
> their
> > > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> > other
> > > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> > might
> > > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> > being
> > > nuanced and diplomatic.
> > >
> > > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> > communicated
> > > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their
> problem
> > > was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> > > Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> > Wikipedia.
> > > But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> > what
> > > the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> > > support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> > > empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
> reason
> > > where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> > now
> > > an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> > > enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> > > trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic
> way.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
> > What I
> > > > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and
> > foremost
> > > > the
> > > > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable
> and
> > > > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection
> on
> > > > en.wp
> > > > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >      GerardM
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

metasj
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Jonathan + Adrian -- thank you for the thoughtful ideas.  Seconding that:
~ We could use warmer, less confusing ways to handle edit conflicts,
deletion, and edit wars
~ We have the luxury of trying many approaches in different places, and
iterating

Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier place?...

There is no such place... Have you been to a city?


Yes. Some disarmingly well-designed and welcoming, despite their density.
The question is not whether better equilibria exist; they do.  It is why
they are often hard to recognize, try out, and adopt.  Your insistence that
'there is no such place' is quite extraordinary, really: and highlights the
challenge.

Todd Allen writes:
> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic.

<laugh>  Smooth redefinition of terms.  Jonathan's proposal was so kind +
specific, and you're spoiling for a fight.
Most of us have an opinion on inclu/delight, and would be glad to debate
it, but this thread isn't the place.

Pierre-Selim:
> can people participating to this thread respect the soft limit of this
mailing list, i.e. this is not a chat

Thanks for the reminder.  More than one post per day in a thread is
probably too much...
_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Benjamin Ikuta
In reply to this post by Todd Allen


As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.

See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism



On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
> and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
>
> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> "article".
>
> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> show sourcing immediately.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
>> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
>> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>>
>> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
>> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
>> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
>> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
>> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
>> would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
>> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz,
>> zzzzz"
>>
>> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
>> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
>> for, among other things:
>>
>>
>>   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>>   to blocks.
>>   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>>   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>>   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>>   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>>
>>
>> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
>> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
>> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
>> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
>> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
>> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
>> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
>> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>>
>> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
>> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
>> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
>> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
>> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
>> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
>> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
>> nuanced and diplomatic.
>>
>> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
>> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
>> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
>> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
>> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
>> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
>> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
>> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
>> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
>> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
>> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
>> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
>> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
>>>> find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
>>> the
>>>> community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
>>>> finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
>>> en.wp
>>>> practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>     GerardM
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>

_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Aron Manning
One could say that deletionism is just as toxic, cutting off valuable
off-springs at the root, based on the balance of different views present at
the birth. Walking around with the intent to cut for a long time, has an
effect on how one relates to the world.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
>
> See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
>
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn
> Pokemon,
> > and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> > "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> > get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
> >
> > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> > "article".
> >
> > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> > show sourcing immediately.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> editing
> >> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> >> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
> at
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
> >>
> >> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
> we
> >> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> >> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> >> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> >> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs.
> I
> >> would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> >> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
> zzzz,
> >> zzzzz"
> >>
> >> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> >> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> >> for, among other things:
> >>
> >>
> >>   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >>   to blocks.
> >>   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >>   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >>   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >>   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >>
> >>
> >> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> >> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> >> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
> conflict
> >> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> >> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> >> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> >> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> >> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >>
> >> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> >> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> >> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> >> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> >> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> >> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> >> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> >> nuanced and diplomatic.
> >>
> >> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> >> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> >> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> >> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> >> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> >> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> >> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> >> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> >> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
> reason
> >> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> >> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> >> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> >> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Hoi,
> >>>> I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What
> I
> >>>> find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> >>> the
> >>>> community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> >>>> finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> >>> en.wp
> >>>> practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>     GerardM
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Anders Wennersten-2
In reply to this post by Benjamin Ikuta
I see the main and most important trend just now is the broad usage and
introduction  of Wikidata in strengthening and extending Wikipedia content.

And Wikidata works against deletionism. All Pokemons shall have separate
WD objects, independency how it is in Wikipedia articles. And as WD is
he sum of all version articles, if any version see a a subject worth to
have a Wikipedia article it will also exist a WDobject for it.

In practice it has meant  for us working in a small version, that we are
in general going the inclusionist way. We focus more that there exist
good sources and that the facts will not be changes over time (but it
must also be known to a substitutional number of people)

I perceive enwp is lagging in the embracing of Wikidata. It could be
understood considering that enwp has less need to lean on WD objects in
their article writing then smaller versions, but is interesting it could
also effect secondary issues like the debate of  inclusionism and
deletionism.

In my personal vision, in 5-10 years there will exist techniques that
enable readers to access Wikidata fact in an interface as in Wikipedia,
extending number of articles you can access in "Wikipedia" in a given
language  to multiply by perhaps a factor 10  or more, a higher factor
for a small language an lower for like enwp - truly a way to "spread
knowledge to all humankind"

Anders



Den 2019-07-06 kl. 12:14, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:

>
> As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
>
> See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
>
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
>> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
>> and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
>> "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
>> get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
>>
>> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
>> "article".
>>
>> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
>> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
>> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
>> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
>> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
>> show sourcing immediately.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
>>> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
>>> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>>>
>>> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
>>> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
>>> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
>>> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
>>> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
>>> would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
>>> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz,
>>> zzzzz"
>>>
>>> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
>>> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
>>> for, among other things:
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>>>    to blocks.
>>>    2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>>>    creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>>>    them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>>>    3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>>>
>>>
>>> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
>>> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
>>> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
>>> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
>>> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
>>> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
>>> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
>>> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>>>
>>> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
>>> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
>>> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
>>> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
>>> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
>>> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
>>> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
>>> nuanced and diplomatic.
>>>
>>> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
>>> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
>>> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
>>> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
>>> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
>>> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
>>> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
>>> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
>>> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
>>> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
>>> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
>>> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
>>> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
>>>>> find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
>>>> the
>>>>> community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
>>>>> finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
>>>> en.wp
>>>>> practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>      GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Pine W
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
I'm continuing to think about the WMF Board's handling of this matter, but
I am experiencing considerable difficulty with wording my comments in a way
that is diplomatic. Hopefully I'll have further comments to share here next
week. In the meantime, and perhaps of greater interest to other
participants in this mailing list thread:

* Discussion about related issues continues on English Wikipedia at [1
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram>],
[2
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram>],
[3 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)>], and
elsewhere.

* Arbcom has passed a related motion
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion_of_office_actions#6)_Reversion_of_office_actions_(II)>,
and there is a related case that is under consideration but might be
declined
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputed_Signpost_article>.
(Disclosure: I made a statement in the latter case, and also participated
in the related discussion at ANI).

* The English Wikipedia page that describes WMF Office actions
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions> has been changed
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AOffice_actions&type=revision&diff=903709635&oldid=902584562>,
including being changed to communicate that it describes a WMF policy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions> and not an English
Wikipedia community policy
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines>. There
may be further changes to that page; some related discussion may be found
on the associated talk page
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Office_actions>.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Pine W
 The pace of discussions about this incident appear to be slowing, both
here and on ENWP. Discussions on ENWP seems to be turning towards longer
term topics.

I think that some of these discussions could instead have happened in
better circumstances. I do not envision any likely outcome where the
benefits that are associated with this incident will outweigh the harms.

Below I share some comments that I selected from the lists of resignations
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Resignations>,
retirements
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Retirements>,
and strikes
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Editors_on_strike>.
Some of the people who made these comments may return to activity or
reclaim their permissions, but my guess is that some of them will not.

A minority of the statements protested the community's actions.

* "I cannot support a community that undermines T&S."
* "...the enwiki community is like the world's largest dysfunctional
family, and I no longer wish to hold a position of responsibility here"
* "... no interest in helping a project that willfully allows and condones
harassment, intimidation and stalking."

The majority protested WMF's actions.

* "the whole WMF ban mess was the straw that broke the camel's back"
* "in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's inconsistent, opaque, oblivious
and inadequate handling of user conduct issues"
* "dispirited by the recent action of T&S, and even more so by their
refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any
mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise"
* "I am not willing to serve Jan and the T&S team … under undisclosed new
rules and under threat of unappealable sanctions should I (or those I
interact with) violate those undisclosed rules, rather than serving the
Wikipedia Community under its imperfect but transparent and accountable
rules."
* "We are not subjects of the WMF ... you have to give us the same respect
you demand for yourselves."
* "Yeah....I handed in my bit too; somehow I can feel a change in the
wind....community seems to matter less and less."
* "There's not much to say that hasn't already been said better by others,
so I'll spare everyone my own manifesto except to say there are a lot of
good people who edit here, and I will miss working with you all very much"
* "I have thought long and hard about this, but do not feel able to
continue to contribute in the current environment. I had hoped it would be
resolved satisfactorily by now, but this is looking increasingly unlikely.
Please accept my resignation and remove the admin tools. Thank you and best
wishes"
* "I am resigning my adminship to protest the contempt the WMF organization
and CEO have for WP's volunteers"
* "I would like to express my disappointment at the way the WMF has handled
this matter so far"
* "I'm out unless and until the foundation repairs it's relationship with
this community."
* "...an utterly empty shell statement. ... When (if?) this resolves I will
consider to ask it back, but currently it is of no use for me. WMF can do
it by themselves in the meantime."
* "I found the Board's response to the Fram affair disappointing to put it
mildly..."
* "enough. Email me when the WMF takes steps to actually fix this place
instead of destroy it."
* "retiring until WMF provide suitable explanation for their behaviour"
* "One of the great things about volunteering is that when an organisation
supposedly devoted to supporting you shows itself incapable of providing a
level of support that you consider adequate, there are no adverse
consequence from simply withdrawing your labour, which is what I am now
doing"
* "I have decided to not edit in content for a period commensurate with
Fram's ban, . .not out of solidarity with F. Out of outrage for the WMF's
kangaroo court encroachment."
* "I am 100% OUT on doing another site maintenance task of any type until
this is resolved properly. This includes for me particularly New Page
Patrolling, Articles for Deletion, RFA commentary, vandal revision (of
which I do very, very little anyway), and notice board participation. I am
not your unpaid intern, WMF."
* "I learned about this late, but I don't work for bullies. I'll not be
editing mainspace until this is satisfactorily resolved."

Personally, I think that the community's ideals are amazing, and the fact
that English Wikipedia works as well as it does reminds me of an eternal
flame <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_flame>. But that flame
operates with a complex web of trust, and if its highly privileged
caretakers attack it or handle it carelessly, then I think that its future
is in doubt.

Hopefully this will give the WMF Board something to contemplate.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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>
1 ... 78910