[Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
1 ... 45678
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

David Gerard-2
On 15 May 2013 08:05, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm addressing this as a structural issue, and there may be other ways to
> express it, but I'm not sure that talking about "the root cause" fits the
> nature of the problem. With apologies for lapsing into legal terminology, my
> message is not about proximate cause, such as for particular incidents.
> Rather, I am focusing on a cultural phenomenon, and as with most aspects of
> culture, certainly many factors may be at play, but I do feel sure that as
> to what I'm describing, this is a major part of the challenge. If you like,
> change that sentence to say "one" reason rather than "the", I think the rest
> of what I wrote is still just as valid.


Yeah, I'd definitely agree with "one".


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Anders Wennersten-2
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-5
Your comment remind me of my strong belief - take time to reflect before
to take action and/or react

My golden rule in complicated/heated issues -  let it take 24 hours
after an urge to act/react before it is made a reality. About two third
of your thought reactions then disappears and the rest is mostly
readjusted to be more sound. :)

Anders

Michael Snow skrev 2013-05-15 08:45:

> I originally wrote this message last year on a nonpublic list. It
> seemed to be well received, and some people asked me to share it
> publicly, but I didn't get around to it then. I think this would be a
> good time to share it here now. It is not specifically directed at
> recent issues here, but I think it does have some relevance. (I have
> some thoughts more directly related to those matters as well, which I
> hope to share when I have time to write them down. That might not
> happen until late Friday, which is probably not the best time for it,
> but based on recent history perhaps I can still hope some people will
> be reading then.)
>
> Internet technology is known for letting things happen much faster
> than they did before we were all so connected. This speed now seems
> normal to us and, being immersed in that culture, we have come to
> expect it. Wikis, as one aspect of that culture, have the feature of
> making that speed a personal tool - you can make something happen
> right away. How many of us got involved because we saw a mistake and
> figuratively couldn't wait to fix it? And when we discovered that we
> literally didn't have to wait, we were hooked.
>
> One result of this is a culture that caters to impatience, sometimes
> even rewards it. And that's why we are often tempted to think that
> being irritable is a way of getting things done. We imagine: this
> problem should be instantly solved, my idea can be implemented right
> away, I will be immediately informed about whatever I care about. But
> as our culture grows in scale, none of that remains true (and perhaps,
> we get more irritated as a result).
>
> I wish I could say that because it's a matter of scale, technology
> will take care of things because that's how we handle scaling.
> However, the issue is not about whether the technology will scale, but
> whether the culture will scale. On a cultural level, scaling issues
> are not handled by technology alone. They are handled by establishing
> shared values (be bold, but also wait for consensus), by agreeing upon
> standard procedures (which provide important protections when designed
> well, but also introduce delays), and by dividing up responsibilities
> (which requires that we trust others).
>
> That last bit is critical; people have repeatedly suggested a certain
> mistrust underlies the repeated flareups. Well, the reason that
> mistrust has grown so much is because we are often impatient, and take
> shortcuts in order to "get things done" (or so we believe). The
> impatience manifests on all sides--to illustrate: volunteers get
> impatient about the effort needed for any kind of policy change,
> chapters get impatient about requirements to develop internal controls
> and share reports on their activities, staff get impatient about time
> involved in consulting with the community. Everyone thinks it would be
> so much better if they were free to just do things and not have to
> deal with these hassles. But in every one of these scenarios, and I'm
> sure I could come up with many more, if we let impatience guide us,
> inevitably more trust will be drained out of the system.
>
> Patience as a virtue is in short supply on the internet. It is not
> native to our culture, but we must apply it in order to scale.
> Fortunately, it is simply a matter of maturity and self-control at
> appropriate moments. I encourage us all to practice it.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-5
Michael, can you please copy this as is on Meta? [[Patience]] will be a
nice complement to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-5
Thank you Michael for the thoughtful post!

I very much agree. I read somewhere (don't ask me for a citation!) that the
physiological effects of anger - increased levels of adrenalin and
cortisol, high heart rate, and the like - take about 30 minutes to return
to normal after something happens that makes you angry.

Back in the day if you received a letter that made you angry, you would
have several hours to write an immediate response, which would then
probably take several more hours to reach its recipient, who would probably
respond the next day... plenty of time for the physical reaction of anger
to subside.

Email, usenet, PhPBB, wikis and the like means there is a technological
method of ensuring that responses can be written and shared instantly (and
angrily) and, indeed, in heated threads you can quite happily exchange
messages which provoke an emotional response quickly enough that your
flight-or-fight reflex is being triggered repeatedly over a period of hours
with every ping of your inbox.

So basically; yes, I agree.

Regards,

Chris



On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I originally wrote this message last year on a nonpublic list. It seemed
> to be well received, and some people asked me to share it publicly, but I
> didn't get around to it then. I think this would be a good time to share it
> here now. It is not specifically directed at recent issues here, but I
> think it does have some relevance. (I have some thoughts more directly
> related to those matters as well, which I hope to share when I have time to
> write them down. That might not happen until late Friday, which is probably
> not the best time for it, but based on recent history perhaps I can still
> hope some people will be reading then.)
>
> Internet technology is known for letting things happen much faster than
> they did before we were all so connected. This speed now seems normal to us
> and, being immersed in that culture, we have come to expect it. Wikis, as
> one aspect of that culture, have the feature of making that speed a
> personal tool - you can make something happen right away. How many of us
> got involved because we saw a mistake and figuratively couldn't wait to fix
> it? And when we discovered that we literally didn't have to wait, we were
> hooked.
>
> One result of this is a culture that caters to impatience, sometimes even
> rewards it. And that's why we are often tempted to think that being
> irritable is a way of getting things done. We imagine: this problem should
> be instantly solved, my idea can be implemented right away, I will be
> immediately informed about whatever I care about. But as our culture grows
> in scale, none of that remains true (and perhaps, we get more irritated as
> a result).
>
> I wish I could say that because it's a matter of scale, technology will
> take care of things because that's how we handle scaling. However, the
> issue is not about whether the technology will scale, but whether the
> culture will scale. On a cultural level, scaling issues are not handled by
> technology alone. They are handled by establishing shared values (be bold,
> but also wait for consensus), by agreeing upon standard procedures (which
> provide important protections when designed well, but also introduce
> delays), and by dividing up responsibilities (which requires that we trust
> others).
>
> That last bit is critical; people have repeatedly suggested a certain
> mistrust underlies the repeated flareups. Well, the reason that mistrust
> has grown so much is because we are often impatient, and take shortcuts in
> order to "get things done" (or so we believe). The impatience manifests on
> all sides--to illustrate: volunteers get impatient about the effort needed
> for any kind of policy change, chapters get impatient about requirements to
> develop internal controls and share reports on their activities, staff get
> impatient about time involved in consulting with the community. Everyone
> thinks it would be so much better if they were free to just do things and
> not have to deal with these hassles. But in every one of these scenarios,
> and I'm sure I could come up with many more, if we let impatience guide us,
> inevitably more trust will be drained out of the system.
>
> Patience as a virtue is in short supply on the internet. It is not native
> to our culture, but we must apply it in order to scale. Fortunately, it is
> simply a matter of maturity and self-control at appropriate moments. I
> encourage us all to practice it.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Florence Devouard-3
Just yesterday during a meeting, a working partner of mine said that he
really could not understand why on earth we were insisting so much that
"wiki" meant "quick". Whilst the edit itself maybe done very quickly, it
actually lead people installing wikis to believe this will accelerate
the production process (=increase productivity).

It is actually incorrect; In most cases, collaborative editing using a
wiki does actually take MORE time than the traditional back and fro of a
document written on a desktop editor and forwarded to others by email
(or dropbox or whatever). Traditional way of doing things is actually so
boring than most multi-authored documents end up being essentially
written by one and lightly copyedited by others, a process which is
often much quicker than the slow and laborious co-writing process on a wiki.

Of course, the second is likely to result in a better document, so that
the argument to use a wiki should be "better documents" rather than
"quicker process".

(No reference to conflict here. It is just a side thought emerging from
my mind as I read this post about patience)

Flo



On 5/15/13 9:31 AM, Chris Keating wrote:

> Thank you Michael for the thoughtful post!
>
> I very much agree. I read somewhere (don't ask me for a citation!) that the
> physiological effects of anger - increased levels of adrenalin and
> cortisol, high heart rate, and the like - take about 30 minutes to return
> to normal after something happens that makes you angry.
>
> Back in the day if you received a letter that made you angry, you would
> have several hours to write an immediate response, which would then
> probably take several more hours to reach its recipient, who would probably
> respond the next day... plenty of time for the physical reaction of anger
> to subside.
>
> Email, usenet, PhPBB, wikis and the like means there is a technological
> method of ensuring that responses can be written and shared instantly (and
> angrily) and, indeed, in heated threads you can quite happily exchange
> messages which provoke an emotional response quickly enough that your
> flight-or-fight reflex is being triggered repeatedly over a period of hours
> with every ping of your inbox.
>
> So basically; yes, I agree.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> I originally wrote this message last year on a nonpublic list. It seemed
>> to be well received, and some people asked me to share it publicly, but I
>> didn't get around to it then. I think this would be a good time to share it
>> here now. It is not specifically directed at recent issues here, but I
>> think it does have some relevance. (I have some thoughts more directly
>> related to those matters as well, which I hope to share when I have time to
>> write them down. That might not happen until late Friday, which is probably
>> not the best time for it, but based on recent history perhaps I can still
>> hope some people will be reading then.)
>>
>> Internet technology is known for letting things happen much faster than
>> they did before we were all so connected. This speed now seems normal to us
>> and, being immersed in that culture, we have come to expect it. Wikis, as
>> one aspect of that culture, have the feature of making that speed a
>> personal tool - you can make something happen right away. How many of us
>> got involved because we saw a mistake and figuratively couldn't wait to fix
>> it? And when we discovered that we literally didn't have to wait, we were
>> hooked.
>>
>> One result of this is a culture that caters to impatience, sometimes even
>> rewards it. And that's why we are often tempted to think that being
>> irritable is a way of getting things done. We imagine: this problem should
>> be instantly solved, my idea can be implemented right away, I will be
>> immediately informed about whatever I care about. But as our culture grows
>> in scale, none of that remains true (and perhaps, we get more irritated as
>> a result).
>>
>> I wish I could say that because it's a matter of scale, technology will
>> take care of things because that's how we handle scaling. However, the
>> issue is not about whether the technology will scale, but whether the
>> culture will scale. On a cultural level, scaling issues are not handled by
>> technology alone. They are handled by establishing shared values (be bold,
>> but also wait for consensus), by agreeing upon standard procedures (which
>> provide important protections when designed well, but also introduce
>> delays), and by dividing up responsibilities (which requires that we trust
>> others).
>>
>> That last bit is critical; people have repeatedly suggested a certain
>> mistrust underlies the repeated flareups. Well, the reason that mistrust
>> has grown so much is because we are often impatient, and take shortcuts in
>> order to "get things done" (or so we believe). The impatience manifests on
>> all sides--to illustrate: volunteers get impatient about the effort needed
>> for any kind of policy change, chapters get impatient about requirements to
>> develop internal controls and share reports on their activities, staff get
>> impatient about time involved in consulting with the community. Everyone
>> thinks it would be so much better if they were free to just do things and
>> not have to deal with these hassles. But in every one of these scenarios,
>> and I'm sure I could come up with many more, if we let impatience guide us,
>> inevitably more trust will be drained out of the system.
>>
>> Patience as a virtue is in short supply on the internet. It is not native
>> to our culture, but we must apply it in order to scale. Fortunately, it is
>> simply a matter of maturity and self-control at appropriate moments. I
>> encourage us all to practice it.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Dan Rosenthal
Florence,

I agree with you almost completely, but I would also note that it is also
partially about the user's thought processes and business norms that
determine how "fast" it is. My employer, for instance, has a wiki that's
meant to be a collaborative resource where disparate elements from across
the (several thousands of persons with access) organization can quickly
iterate on a document the same way we make revisions to our wikis. In
practice, however, we are so accustomed to a high level "waterfall style"
process as you describe, with a primary author and several interested
parties "clearing" the copy, it completely loses any benefit of the process
and becomes no different to me than a Sharepoint site with slightly better
UI.

-Dan

Dan Rosenthal


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Just yesterday during a meeting, a working partner of mine said that he
> really could not understand why on earth we were insisting so much that
> "wiki" meant "quick". Whilst the edit itself maybe done very quickly, it
> actually lead people installing wikis to believe this will accelerate the
> production process (=increase productivity).
>
> It is actually incorrect; In most cases, collaborative editing using a
> wiki does actually take MORE time than the traditional back and fro of a
> document written on a desktop editor and forwarded to others by email (or
> dropbox or whatever). Traditional way of doing things is actually so boring
> than most multi-authored documents end up being essentially written by one
> and lightly copyedited by others, a process which is often much quicker
> than the slow and laborious co-writing process on a wiki.
>
> Of course, the second is likely to result in a better document, so that
> the argument to use a wiki should be "better documents" rather than
> "quicker process".
>
> (No reference to conflict here. It is just a side thought emerging from my
> mind as I read this post about patience)
>
> Flo
>
>
>
>
> On 5/15/13 9:31 AM, Chris Keating wrote:
>
>> Thank you Michael for the thoughtful post!
>>
>> I very much agree. I read somewhere (don't ask me for a citation!) that
>> the
>> physiological effects of anger - increased levels of adrenalin and
>> cortisol, high heart rate, and the like - take about 30 minutes to return
>> to normal after something happens that makes you angry.
>>
>> Back in the day if you received a letter that made you angry, you would
>> have several hours to write an immediate response, which would then
>> probably take several more hours to reach its recipient, who would
>> probably
>> respond the next day... plenty of time for the physical reaction of anger
>> to subside.
>>
>> Email, usenet, PhPBB, wikis and the like means there is a technological
>> method of ensuring that responses can be written and shared instantly (and
>> angrily) and, indeed, in heated threads you can quite happily exchange
>> messages which provoke an emotional response quickly enough that your
>> flight-or-fight reflex is being triggered repeatedly over a period of
>> hours
>> with every ping of your inbox.
>>
>> So basically; yes, I agree.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  I originally wrote this message last year on a nonpublic list. It seemed
>>> to be well received, and some people asked me to share it publicly, but I
>>> didn't get around to it then. I think this would be a good time to share
>>> it
>>> here now. It is not specifically directed at recent issues here, but I
>>> think it does have some relevance. (I have some thoughts more directly
>>> related to those matters as well, which I hope to share when I have time
>>> to
>>> write them down. That might not happen until late Friday, which is
>>> probably
>>> not the best time for it, but based on recent history perhaps I can still
>>> hope some people will be reading then.)
>>>
>>> Internet technology is known for letting things happen much faster than
>>> they did before we were all so connected. This speed now seems normal to
>>> us
>>> and, being immersed in that culture, we have come to expect it. Wikis, as
>>> one aspect of that culture, have the feature of making that speed a
>>> personal tool - you can make something happen right away. How many of us
>>> got involved because we saw a mistake and figuratively couldn't wait to
>>> fix
>>> it? And when we discovered that we literally didn't have to wait, we were
>>> hooked.
>>>
>>> One result of this is a culture that caters to impatience, sometimes even
>>> rewards it. And that's why we are often tempted to think that being
>>> irritable is a way of getting things done. We imagine: this problem
>>> should
>>> be instantly solved, my idea can be implemented right away, I will be
>>> immediately informed about whatever I care about. But as our culture
>>> grows
>>> in scale, none of that remains true (and perhaps, we get more irritated
>>> as
>>> a result).
>>>
>>> I wish I could say that because it's a matter of scale, technology will
>>> take care of things because that's how we handle scaling. However, the
>>> issue is not about whether the technology will scale, but whether the
>>> culture will scale. On a cultural level, scaling issues are not handled
>>> by
>>> technology alone. They are handled by establishing shared values (be
>>> bold,
>>> but also wait for consensus), by agreeing upon standard procedures (which
>>> provide important protections when designed well, but also introduce
>>> delays), and by dividing up responsibilities (which requires that we
>>> trust
>>> others).
>>>
>>> That last bit is critical; people have repeatedly suggested a certain
>>> mistrust underlies the repeated flareups. Well, the reason that mistrust
>>> has grown so much is because we are often impatient, and take shortcuts
>>> in
>>> order to "get things done" (or so we believe). The impatience manifests
>>> on
>>> all sides--to illustrate: volunteers get impatient about the effort
>>> needed
>>> for any kind of policy change, chapters get impatient about requirements
>>> to
>>> develop internal controls and share reports on their activities, staff
>>> get
>>> impatient about time involved in consulting with the community. Everyone
>>> thinks it would be so much better if they were free to just do things and
>>> not have to deal with these hassles. But in every one of these scenarios,
>>> and I'm sure I could come up with many more, if we let impatience guide
>>> us,
>>> inevitably more trust will be drained out of the system.
>>>
>>> Patience as a virtue is in short supply on the internet. It is not native
>>> to our culture, but we must apply it in order to scale. Fortunately, it
>>> is
>>> simply a matter of maturity and self-control at appropriate moments. I
>>> encourage us all to practice it.
>>>
>>> --Michael Snow
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email].****org <[hidden email].**org<[hidden email]>
>>> >
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/****
>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>> >
>>>
>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Andrea Zanni-2
I don't know if relates opn what you said,
but I'd add that a wiki is a great way to work on different, related
documents at the same time,
and it's useful t tag/categorizes them, and to have a bunch of integrated
documents
all together. Writing all together a single document is difficult also on
Etherpad,
because, well, people don't share their minds.

Aubrey


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Florence,
>
> I agree with you almost completely, but I would also note that it is also
> partially about the user's thought processes and business norms that
> determine how "fast" it is. My employer, for instance, has a wiki that's
> meant to be a collaborative resource where disparate elements from across
> the (several thousands of persons with access) organization can quickly
> iterate on a document the same way we make revisions to our wikis. In
> practice, however, we are so accustomed to a high level "waterfall style"
> process as you describe, with a primary author and several interested
> parties "clearing" the copy, it completely loses any benefit of the process
> and becomes no different to me than a Sharepoint site with slightly better
> UI.
>
> -Dan
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Just yesterday during a meeting, a working partner of mine said that he
> > really could not understand why on earth we were insisting so much that
> > "wiki" meant "quick". Whilst the edit itself maybe done very quickly, it
> > actually lead people installing wikis to believe this will accelerate the
> > production process (=increase productivity).
> >
> > It is actually incorrect; In most cases, collaborative editing using a
> > wiki does actually take MORE time than the traditional back and fro of a
> > document written on a desktop editor and forwarded to others by email (or
> > dropbox or whatever). Traditional way of doing things is actually so
> boring
> > than most multi-authored documents end up being essentially written by
> one
> > and lightly copyedited by others, a process which is often much quicker
> > than the slow and laborious co-writing process on a wiki.
> >
> > Of course, the second is likely to result in a better document, so that
> > the argument to use a wiki should be "better documents" rather than
> > "quicker process".
> >
> > (No reference to conflict here. It is just a side thought emerging from
> my
> > mind as I read this post about patience)
> >
> > Flo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/15/13 9:31 AM, Chris Keating wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you Michael for the thoughtful post!
> >>
> >> I very much agree. I read somewhere (don't ask me for a citation!) that
> >> the
> >> physiological effects of anger - increased levels of adrenalin and
> >> cortisol, high heart rate, and the like - take about 30 minutes to
> return
> >> to normal after something happens that makes you angry.
> >>
> >> Back in the day if you received a letter that made you angry, you would
> >> have several hours to write an immediate response, which would then
> >> probably take several more hours to reach its recipient, who would
> >> probably
> >> respond the next day... plenty of time for the physical reaction of
> anger
> >> to subside.
> >>
> >> Email, usenet, PhPBB, wikis and the like means there is a technological
> >> method of ensuring that responses can be written and shared instantly
> (and
> >> angrily) and, indeed, in heated threads you can quite happily exchange
> >> messages which provoke an emotional response quickly enough that your
> >> flight-or-fight reflex is being triggered repeatedly over a period of
> >> hours
> >> with every ping of your inbox.
> >>
> >> So basically; yes, I agree.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>  I originally wrote this message last year on a nonpublic list. It
> seemed
> >>> to be well received, and some people asked me to share it publicly,
> but I
> >>> didn't get around to it then. I think this would be a good time to
> share
> >>> it
> >>> here now. It is not specifically directed at recent issues here, but I
> >>> think it does have some relevance. (I have some thoughts more directly
> >>> related to those matters as well, which I hope to share when I have
> time
> >>> to
> >>> write them down. That might not happen until late Friday, which is
> >>> probably
> >>> not the best time for it, but based on recent history perhaps I can
> still
> >>> hope some people will be reading then.)
> >>>
> >>> Internet technology is known for letting things happen much faster than
> >>> they did before we were all so connected. This speed now seems normal
> to
> >>> us
> >>> and, being immersed in that culture, we have come to expect it. Wikis,
> as
> >>> one aspect of that culture, have the feature of making that speed a
> >>> personal tool - you can make something happen right away. How many of
> us
> >>> got involved because we saw a mistake and figuratively couldn't wait to
> >>> fix
> >>> it? And when we discovered that we literally didn't have to wait, we
> were
> >>> hooked.
> >>>
> >>> One result of this is a culture that caters to impatience, sometimes
> even
> >>> rewards it. And that's why we are often tempted to think that being
> >>> irritable is a way of getting things done. We imagine: this problem
> >>> should
> >>> be instantly solved, my idea can be implemented right away, I will be
> >>> immediately informed about whatever I care about. But as our culture
> >>> grows
> >>> in scale, none of that remains true (and perhaps, we get more irritated
> >>> as
> >>> a result).
> >>>
> >>> I wish I could say that because it's a matter of scale, technology will
> >>> take care of things because that's how we handle scaling. However, the
> >>> issue is not about whether the technology will scale, but whether the
> >>> culture will scale. On a cultural level, scaling issues are not handled
> >>> by
> >>> technology alone. They are handled by establishing shared values (be
> >>> bold,
> >>> but also wait for consensus), by agreeing upon standard procedures
> (which
> >>> provide important protections when designed well, but also introduce
> >>> delays), and by dividing up responsibilities (which requires that we
> >>> trust
> >>> others).
> >>>
> >>> That last bit is critical; people have repeatedly suggested a certain
> >>> mistrust underlies the repeated flareups. Well, the reason that
> mistrust
> >>> has grown so much is because we are often impatient, and take shortcuts
> >>> in
> >>> order to "get things done" (or so we believe). The impatience manifests
> >>> on
> >>> all sides--to illustrate: volunteers get impatient about the effort
> >>> needed
> >>> for any kind of policy change, chapters get impatient about
> requirements
> >>> to
> >>> develop internal controls and share reports on their activities, staff
> >>> get
> >>> impatient about time involved in consulting with the community.
> Everyone
> >>> thinks it would be so much better if they were free to just do things
> and
> >>> not have to deal with these hassles. But in every one of these
> scenarios,
> >>> and I'm sure I could come up with many more, if we let impatience guide
> >>> us,
> >>> inevitably more trust will be drained out of the system.
> >>>
> >>> Patience as a virtue is in short supply on the internet. It is not
> native
> >>> to our culture, but we must apply it in order to scale. Fortunately, it
> >>> is
> >>> simply a matter of maturity and self-control at appropriate moments. I
> >>> encourage us all to practice it.
> >>>
> >>> --Michael Snow
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________****_________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> [hidden email].****org <[hidden email].
> **org<[hidden email]>
> >>> >
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/****
> >>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >>> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>  ______________________________**_________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
> Florence,
>
> I agree with you almost completely, but I would also note that it is also
> partially about the user's thought processes and business norms that
> determine how "fast" it is. My employer, for instance, has a wiki that's
> meant to be a collaborative resource where disparate elements from across
> the (several thousands of persons with access) organization can quickly
> iterate on a document the same way we make revisions to our wikis. In
> practice, however, we are so accustomed to a high level "waterfall style"
> process as you describe, with a primary author and several interested
> parties "clearing" the copy, it completely loses any benefit of the
> process
> and becomes no different to me than a Sharepoint site with slightly
> better
> UI.
>
> -Dan
>
> Dan Rosenthal

We have a few waterfall editors on Wikipedia too, and they are a repeated
source of trouble, as they are likely to defend strongly against
collaborative changes. Patience is a premise for dealing successfully
with any group dynamic, Napoleon and Alexander the Great not
withstanding.

Fred


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
I just wanted to add another thought to this, which occurred to me on the
bus in to work this morning.

There is an insight from a school of psychotherapy called Transactional
Analysis* that, while all of us have a basic need to interact with one
another, that need is fulfilled as much by negative interactions as
positive ones. If positive interactions are lacking (which they often are,
because we are socially conditioned to avoid providing positive
interactions unless there is a "good reason"), then negative interactions
will substitute for them because they fulfill the same psychological need,
just in a much more dysfunctional way.

I wouldn't recommend this as rigorously-proven scientific analysis but I've
often been surprised by how true it can be.

Perhaps when email lists are quiet we should simply praise each other more?
;-)

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Chris Keating
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Thank you Michael for the thoughtful post!
>
> I very much agree. I read somewhere (don't ask me for a citation!) that
> the physiological effects of anger - increased levels of adrenalin and
> cortisol, high heart rate, and the like - take about 30 minutes to return
> to normal after something happens that makes you angry.
>
> Back in the day if you received a letter that made you angry, you would
> have several hours to write an immediate response, which would then
> probably take several more hours to reach its recipient, who would probably
> respond the next day... plenty of time for the physical reaction of anger
> to subside.
>
> Email, usenet, PhPBB, wikis and the like means there is a technological
> method of ensuring that responses can be written and shared instantly (and
> angrily) and, indeed, in heated threads you can quite happily exchange
> messages which provoke an emotional response quickly enough that your
> flight-or-fight reflex is being triggered repeatedly over a period of hours
> with every ping of your inbox.
>
> So basically; yes, I agree.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> I originally wrote this message last year on a nonpublic list. It seemed
>> to be well received, and some people asked me to share it publicly, but I
>> didn't get around to it then. I think this would be a good time to share it
>> here now. It is not specifically directed at recent issues here, but I
>> think it does have some relevance. (I have some thoughts more directly
>> related to those matters as well, which I hope to share when I have time to
>> write them down. That might not happen until late Friday, which is probably
>> not the best time for it, but based on recent history perhaps I can still
>> hope some people will be reading then.)
>>
>> Internet technology is known for letting things happen much faster than
>> they did before we were all so connected. This speed now seems normal to us
>> and, being immersed in that culture, we have come to expect it. Wikis, as
>> one aspect of that culture, have the feature of making that speed a
>> personal tool - you can make something happen right away. How many of us
>> got involved because we saw a mistake and figuratively couldn't wait to fix
>> it? And when we discovered that we literally didn't have to wait, we were
>> hooked.
>>
>> One result of this is a culture that caters to impatience, sometimes even
>> rewards it. And that's why we are often tempted to think that being
>> irritable is a way of getting things done. We imagine: this problem should
>> be instantly solved, my idea can be implemented right away, I will be
>> immediately informed about whatever I care about. But as our culture grows
>> in scale, none of that remains true (and perhaps, we get more irritated as
>> a result).
>>
>> I wish I could say that because it's a matter of scale, technology will
>> take care of things because that's how we handle scaling. However, the
>> issue is not about whether the technology will scale, but whether the
>> culture will scale. On a cultural level, scaling issues are not handled by
>> technology alone. They are handled by establishing shared values (be bold,
>> but also wait for consensus), by agreeing upon standard procedures (which
>> provide important protections when designed well, but also introduce
>> delays), and by dividing up responsibilities (which requires that we trust
>> others).
>>
>> That last bit is critical; people have repeatedly suggested a certain
>> mistrust underlies the repeated flareups. Well, the reason that mistrust
>> has grown so much is because we are often impatient, and take shortcuts in
>> order to "get things done" (or so we believe). The impatience manifests on
>> all sides--to illustrate: volunteers get impatient about the effort needed
>> for any kind of policy change, chapters get impatient about requirements to
>> develop internal controls and share reports on their activities, staff get
>> impatient about time involved in consulting with the community. Everyone
>> thinks it would be so much better if they were free to just do things and
>> not have to deal with these hassles. But in every one of these scenarios,
>> and I'm sure I could come up with many more, if we let impatience guide us,
>> inevitably more trust will be drained out of the system.
>>
>> Patience as a virtue is in short supply on the internet. It is not native
>> to our culture, but we must apply it in order to scale. Fortunately, it is
>> simply a matter of maturity and self-control at appropriate moments. I
>> encourage us all to practice it.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Fred Bauder-2
We could create a Facebook page, "Wikipedia Chill", where only positive
interactions are permitted...

Only half joking here. We can consciously design interactions in terms of
their emotional tenor should we chose to. In an example taken from life,
we can keep vicious dogs for the effect they have on the possibility of
constructive dialogue and collaboration, or not.

Fred

> I just wanted to add another thought to this, which occurred to me on the
> bus in to work this morning.
>
> There is an insight from a school of psychotherapy called Transactional
> Analysis* that, while all of us have a basic need to interact with one
> another, that need is fulfilled as much by negative interactions as
> positive ones. If positive interactions are lacking (which they often
> are,
> because we are socially conditioned to avoid providing positive
> interactions unless there is a "good reason"), then negative interactions
> will substitute for them because they fulfill the same psychological
> need,
> just in a much more dysfunctional way.
>
> I wouldn't recommend this as rigorously-proven scientific analysis but
> I've
> often been surprised by how true it can be.
>
> Perhaps when email lists are quiet we should simply praise each other
> more?
> ;-)
>
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Chris Keating
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Thank you Michael for the thoughtful post!
>>
>> I very much agree. I read somewhere (don't ask me for a citation!) that
>> the physiological effects of anger - increased levels of adrenalin and
>> cortisol, high heart rate, and the like - take about 30 minutes to
>> return
>> to normal after something happens that makes you angry.
>>
>> Back in the day if you received a letter that made you angry, you would
>> have several hours to write an immediate response, which would then
>> probably take several more hours to reach its recipient, who would
>> probably
>> respond the next day... plenty of time for the physical reaction of
>> anger
>> to subside.
>>
>> Email, usenet, PhPBB, wikis and the like means there is a technological
>> method of ensuring that responses can be written and shared instantly
>> (and
>> angrily) and, indeed, in heated threads you can quite happily exchange
>> messages which provoke an emotional response quickly enough that your
>> flight-or-fight reflex is being triggered repeatedly over a period of
>> hours
>> with every ping of your inbox.
>>
>> So basically; yes, I agree.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Michael Snow
>> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> I originally wrote this message last year on a nonpublic list. It
>>> seemed
>>> to be well received, and some people asked me to share it publicly,
>>> but I
>>> didn't get around to it then. I think this would be a good time to
>>> share it
>>> here now. It is not specifically directed at recent issues here, but I
>>> think it does have some relevance. (I have some thoughts more directly
>>> related to those matters as well, which I hope to share when I have
>>> time to
>>> write them down. That might not happen until late Friday, which is
>>> probably
>>> not the best time for it, but based on recent history perhaps I can
>>> still
>>> hope some people will be reading then.)
>>>
>>> Internet technology is known for letting things happen much faster
>>> than
>>> they did before we were all so connected. This speed now seems normal
>>> to us
>>> and, being immersed in that culture, we have come to expect it. Wikis,
>>> as
>>> one aspect of that culture, have the feature of making that speed a
>>> personal tool - you can make something happen right away. How many of
>>> us
>>> got involved because we saw a mistake and figuratively couldn't wait
>>> to fix
>>> it? And when we discovered that we literally didn't have to wait, we
>>> were
>>> hooked.
>>>
>>> One result of this is a culture that caters to impatience, sometimes
>>> even
>>> rewards it. And that's why we are often tempted to think that being
>>> irritable is a way of getting things done. We imagine: this problem
>>> should
>>> be instantly solved, my idea can be implemented right away, I will be
>>> immediately informed about whatever I care about. But as our culture
>>> grows
>>> in scale, none of that remains true (and perhaps, we get more
>>> irritated as
>>> a result).
>>>
>>> I wish I could say that because it's a matter of scale, technology
>>> will
>>> take care of things because that's how we handle scaling. However, the
>>> issue is not about whether the technology will scale, but whether the
>>> culture will scale. On a cultural level, scaling issues are not
>>> handled by
>>> technology alone. They are handled by establishing shared values (be
>>> bold,
>>> but also wait for consensus), by agreeing upon standard procedures
>>> (which
>>> provide important protections when designed well, but also introduce
>>> delays), and by dividing up responsibilities (which requires that we
>>> trust
>>> others).
>>>
>>> That last bit is critical; people have repeatedly suggested a certain
>>> mistrust underlies the repeated flareups. Well, the reason that
>>> mistrust
>>> has grown so much is because we are often impatient, and take
>>> shortcuts in
>>> order to "get things done" (or so we believe). The impatience
>>> manifests on
>>> all sides--to illustrate: volunteers get impatient about the effort
>>> needed
>>> for any kind of policy change, chapters get impatient about
>>> requirements to
>>> develop internal controls and share reports on their activities, staff
>>> get
>>> impatient about time involved in consulting with the community.
>>> Everyone
>>> thinks it would be so much better if they were free to just do things
>>> and
>>> not have to deal with these hassles. But in every one of these
>>> scenarios,
>>> and I'm sure I could come up with many more, if we let impatience
>>> guide us,
>>> inevitably more trust will be drained out of the system.
>>>
>>> Patience as a virtue is in short supply on the internet. It is not
>>> native
>>> to our culture, but we must apply it in order to scale. Fortunately,
>>> it is
>>> simply a matter of maturity and self-control at appropriate moments. I
>>> encourage us all to practice it.
>>>
>>> --Michael Snow
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2
True

Yet... on the other hand... on many "private" wikis, there is
- either no one to do that job of curation/tagging/cleaning (in which
case the wiki ends up being... a collection of disparate elements with
no benefits in terms of "gaining time when looking for information")
- or that job is done by an appointed person (in which case, the wiki
ends up being organized based on the mindset of one person rather than
based on the actual thought processes of most users).

In both cases, the promise of "fast" search (fast find) fails.

Flo


On 5/15/13 10:34 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote:

> I don't know if relates opn what you said,
> but I'd add that a wiki is a great way to work on different, related
> documents at the same time,
> and it's useful t tag/categorizes them, and to have a bunch of integrated
> documents
> all together. Writing all together a single document is difficult also on
> Etherpad,
> because, well, people don't share their minds.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Florence,
>>
>> I agree with you almost completely, but I would also note that it is also
>> partially about the user's thought processes and business norms that
>> determine how "fast" it is. My employer, for instance, has a wiki that's
>> meant to be a collaborative resource where disparate elements from across
>> the (several thousands of persons with access) organization can quickly
>> iterate on a document the same way we make revisions to our wikis. In
>> practice, however, we are so accustomed to a high level "waterfall style"
>> process as you describe, with a primary author and several interested
>> parties "clearing" the copy, it completely loses any benefit of the process
>> and becomes no different to me than a Sharepoint site with slightly better
>> UI.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> Dan Rosenthal
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just yesterday during a meeting, a working partner of mine said that he
>>> really could not understand why on earth we were insisting so much that
>>> "wiki" meant "quick". Whilst the edit itself maybe done very quickly, it
>>> actually lead people installing wikis to believe this will accelerate the
>>> production process (=increase productivity).
>>>
>>> It is actually incorrect; In most cases, collaborative editing using a
>>> wiki does actually take MORE time than the traditional back and fro of a
>>> document written on a desktop editor and forwarded to others by email (or
>>> dropbox or whatever). Traditional way of doing things is actually so
>> boring
>>> than most multi-authored documents end up being essentially written by
>> one
>>> and lightly copyedited by others, a process which is often much quicker
>>> than the slow and laborious co-writing process on a wiki.
>>>
>>> Of course, the second is likely to result in a better document, so that
>>> the argument to use a wiki should be "better documents" rather than
>>> "quicker process".
>>>
>>> (No reference to conflict here. It is just a side thought emerging from
>> my
>>> mind as I read this post about patience)
>>>
>>> Flo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/15/13 9:31 AM, Chris Keating wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Michael for the thoughtful post!
>>>>
>>>> I very much agree. I read somewhere (don't ask me for a citation!) that
>>>> the
>>>> physiological effects of anger - increased levels of adrenalin and
>>>> cortisol, high heart rate, and the like - take about 30 minutes to
>> return
>>>> to normal after something happens that makes you angry.
>>>>
>>>> Back in the day if you received a letter that made you angry, you would
>>>> have several hours to write an immediate response, which would then
>>>> probably take several more hours to reach its recipient, who would
>>>> probably
>>>> respond the next day... plenty of time for the physical reaction of
>> anger
>>>> to subside.
>>>>
>>>> Email, usenet, PhPBB, wikis and the like means there is a technological
>>>> method of ensuring that responses can be written and shared instantly
>> (and
>>>> angrily) and, indeed, in heated threads you can quite happily exchange
>>>> messages which provoke an emotional response quickly enough that your
>>>> flight-or-fight reflex is being triggered repeatedly over a period of
>>>> hours
>>>> with every ping of your inbox.
>>>>
>>>> So basically; yes, I agree.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   I originally wrote this message last year on a nonpublic list. It
>> seemed
>>>>> to be well received, and some people asked me to share it publicly,
>> but I
>>>>> didn't get around to it then. I think this would be a good time to
>> share
>>>>> it
>>>>> here now. It is not specifically directed at recent issues here, but I
>>>>> think it does have some relevance. (I have some thoughts more directly
>>>>> related to those matters as well, which I hope to share when I have
>> time
>>>>> to
>>>>> write them down. That might not happen until late Friday, which is
>>>>> probably
>>>>> not the best time for it, but based on recent history perhaps I can
>> still
>>>>> hope some people will be reading then.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet technology is known for letting things happen much faster than
>>>>> they did before we were all so connected. This speed now seems normal
>> to
>>>>> us
>>>>> and, being immersed in that culture, we have come to expect it. Wikis,
>> as
>>>>> one aspect of that culture, have the feature of making that speed a
>>>>> personal tool - you can make something happen right away. How many of
>> us
>>>>> got involved because we saw a mistake and figuratively couldn't wait to
>>>>> fix
>>>>> it? And when we discovered that we literally didn't have to wait, we
>> were
>>>>> hooked.
>>>>>
>>>>> One result of this is a culture that caters to impatience, sometimes
>> even
>>>>> rewards it. And that's why we are often tempted to think that being
>>>>> irritable is a way of getting things done. We imagine: this problem
>>>>> should
>>>>> be instantly solved, my idea can be implemented right away, I will be
>>>>> immediately informed about whatever I care about. But as our culture
>>>>> grows
>>>>> in scale, none of that remains true (and perhaps, we get more irritated
>>>>> as
>>>>> a result).
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish I could say that because it's a matter of scale, technology will
>>>>> take care of things because that's how we handle scaling. However, the
>>>>> issue is not about whether the technology will scale, but whether the
>>>>> culture will scale. On a cultural level, scaling issues are not handled
>>>>> by
>>>>> technology alone. They are handled by establishing shared values (be
>>>>> bold,
>>>>> but also wait for consensus), by agreeing upon standard procedures
>> (which
>>>>> provide important protections when designed well, but also introduce
>>>>> delays), and by dividing up responsibilities (which requires that we
>>>>> trust
>>>>> others).
>>>>>
>>>>> That last bit is critical; people have repeatedly suggested a certain
>>>>> mistrust underlies the repeated flareups. Well, the reason that
>> mistrust
>>>>> has grown so much is because we are often impatient, and take shortcuts
>>>>> in
>>>>> order to "get things done" (or so we believe). The impatience manifests
>>>>> on
>>>>> all sides--to illustrate: volunteers get impatient about the effort
>>>>> needed
>>>>> for any kind of policy change, chapters get impatient about
>> requirements
>>>>> to
>>>>> develop internal controls and share reports on their activities, staff
>>>>> get
>>>>> impatient about time involved in consulting with the community.
>> Everyone
>>>>> thinks it would be so much better if they were free to just do things
>> and
>>>>> not have to deal with these hassles. But in every one of these
>> scenarios,
>>>>> and I'm sure I could come up with many more, if we let impatience guide
>>>>> us,
>>>>> inevitably more trust will be drained out of the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patience as a virtue is in short supply on the internet. It is not
>> native
>>>>> to our culture, but we must apply it in order to scale. Fortunately, it
>>>>> is
>>>>> simply a matter of maturity and self-control at appropriate moments. I
>>>>> encourage us all to practice it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Michael Snow
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email].****org <[hidden email].
>> **org<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/****
>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>>> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Sue Gardner-2
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
On 15 May 2013 00:31, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Thank you Michael for the thoughtful post!

Yeah, agreed. I always look forward to reading anything Michael's
written. He doesn't write frequently, but when he does it is always
good.

> Email, usenet, PhPBB, wikis and the like means there is a technological
> method of ensuring that responses can be written and shared instantly (and
> angrily) and, indeed, in heated threads you can quite happily exchange
> messages which provoke an emotional response quickly enough that your
> flight-or-fight reflex is being triggered repeatedly over a period of hours
> with every ping of your inbox.

Yeah, this is true. I used to deliberately build into my day walks, so
I'd have time to reflect on things before responding. But of course
that strategy broke when I got my first mail-enabled phone :-/

I do deliberately wait an hour or two, often, before replying to mail
on our lists because it's so easy to get triggered and reply in a way
that makes things worse not better. Sometimes I'll write a draft
response, reread it the next day and be kind of horrified by how badly
my reply misunderstands the original mail. (Like, I will feel attacked
where there really was no attack. I'll interpret something in the
worst possible way rather than the most reasonable way.) It's the
[[Michael Shermer]] thing: if we ignore the rustling in the grass and
it's the wind, no harm done. But if we ignore it and it's a tiger,
we're dead. So rationally, we behave as though everything is a tiger,
without necessarily realizing that reflexively doing that has a pretty
high price-tag.

Anyway, yes. Patience, maturity, self-control and generosity for the win :-)
Sue

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Michael Snow-5
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On 5/15/2013 12:26 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Michael, can you please copy this as is on Meta? [[Patience]] will be
> a nice complement to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism
Done. Feel free to share and circulate in any way that may be useful.

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

ENWP Pine
In reply to this post by Tomasz W. Kozlowski
I agree that patience is a very important virtue in some situations, such as when we coach newbies or seek consensus among many people. But it's sometimes not a virtue, such as in many crisis situations. As a metrics and performance enthusiast, I feel that it's possible to have an appropriate mix of patience and impatience, and people should be appropriately accountable for their performance.

Pine
     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Fred Bauder-2
> I agree that patience is a very important virtue in some situations, such
> as when we coach newbies or seek consensus among many people. But it's
> sometimes not a virtue, such as in many crisis situations. As a metrics
> and performance enthusiast, I feel that it's possible to have an
> appropriate mix of patience and impatience, and people should be
> appropriately accountable for their performance.
>
> Pine
>

Fine, so long as people don't make emergencies out of things that could
very well be carefully considered and decided. We are not [plug in name
of political idiot].

Fred


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

Michael Snow-5
In reply to this post by ENWP Pine
On 5/16/2013 11:52 AM, ENWP Pine wrote:
> I agree that patience is a very important virtue in some situations, such as when we coach newbies or seek consensus among many people. But it's sometimes not a virtue, such as in many crisis situations. As a metrics and performance enthusiast, I feel that it's possible to have an appropriate mix of patience and impatience, and people should be appropriately accountable for their performance.
I suppose it depends what implications you attach to those words, but I
would not recommend using "impatience" when what you really want is
"urgency". In my experience, the self-discipline that goes into everyday
patience can actually remain a virtue in crisis situations as well, as
it may help you remain clear-headed and make better decisions than you
would if you let the circumstances overwhelm your ability to think
rationally. And as Fred points out, a big part of my message relates
especially to making emergencies out of things that are not.

I also do not believe that patience is in any way incompatible with
accountability. Patience does not require ignoring commitments,
discarding performance evaluation, or even disregarding agreed
timeframes. However, it does mean that the results of the evaluation
should be well-considered and any consequences appropriate to the
circumstances. Impatience tends to drive us to choose excessive
consequences, like a lot of the "somebody should be fired" kind of talk
over things that are honest mistakes.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2
Le 2013-05-15 22:07, Sue Gardner a écrit :
> It's the
> [[Michael Shermer]] thing: if we ignore the rustling in the grass and
> it's the wind, no harm done. But if we ignore it and it's a tiger,
> we're dead. So rationally, we behave as though everything is a tiger,
> without necessarily realizing that reflexively doing that has a
> pretty
> high price-tag.

Interesting. On the other hand, in my very own case, I think that if
it's a tiger, then I'm dead anyway: I'm not a warior able to win against
a tiger with bare hand, and I'm not sure on this but isn't the average
tiger a better sprinter than the world biggest human champion in this
field?

It may me think of the quotation, which I red, may be on this list,
(attributed to the Dalai Lama in the document where I found it): "I
there's a solution there's no need to worry, and if there is no
solution, there's no need to worry".

>
> Anyway, yes. Patience, maturity, self-control and generosity for the
> win :-)
> Sue
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

--
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience

ENWP Pine
In reply to this post by Tomasz W. Kozlowski
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:47:08 -0700
> From: Michael Snow <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Patience
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 5/16/2013 11:52 AM, ENWP Pine wrote:
> > I agree that patience is a very important virtue in some situations, such as when we coach newbies or seek consensus among many people. But it's sometimes not a virtue, such as in many crisis situations. As a metrics and performance enthusiast, I feel that it's possible to have an appropriate mix of patience and impatience, and people should be appropriately accountable for their performance.
> I suppose it depends what implications you attach to those words, but I
> would not recommend using "impatience" when what you really want is
> "urgency". In my experience, the self-discipline that goes into everyday
> patience can actually remain a virtue in crisis situations as well, as
> it may help you remain clear-headed and make better decisions than you
> would if you let the circumstances overwhelm your ability to think
> rationally. And as Fred points out, a big part of my message relates
> especially to making emergencies out of things that are not.
>
> I also do not believe that patience is in any way incompatible with
> accountability. Patience does not require ignoring commitments,
> discarding performance evaluation, or even disregarding agreed
> timeframes. However, it does mean that the results of the evaluation
> should be well-considered and any consequences appropriate to the
> circumstances. Impatience tends to drive us to choose excessive
> consequences, like a lot of the "somebody should be fired" kind of talk
> over things that are honest mistakes.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
>

I think I understand your distinction between urgency and impatience in
the sense that the former doesn't necessarily imply the brusqueness
that the latter can.

Whether a situation is an emergency is sometimes subjective. I think
that someone on this list pointed out that something that's a crisis
for one entity may be viewed as a minor issue by another entity.

I agree that employment consequences for poor performance
should be carefully considered prior to implementation. However,
sometimes demoting or firing someone is appropriate, even if a poor
decision was an "honest mistake". Serious negligence is unacceptable.

On the other hand, it's also a good idea do praise and celebrate
success and good performance, as we're doing now with regards
to Spanish Wikipedia's significant milestone.

Pine
     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Tomasz W. Kozlowski
In reply to this post by David Goodman-2
Well, it's Monday SF time (4 PM if Google doesn't lie to me), and we're
still waiting for some explanations on why this situations happened /at
all/.

        -- Tomasz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Milos Rancic-2
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, it's Monday SF time (4 PM if Google doesn't lie to me), and we're
> still waiting for some explanations on why this situations happened /at
> all/.

The problem with this kind of actions is personal inability to suppose
what the action can produce. It could be a bureaucratic decision or
something perceived as a small revenge, but I don't think that it
would be done if the full consequences of the action were known, even
the "full consequences" means raising this issue on wikimedia-l.

If we are not talking about geeks with obsessive-compulsive disorder
(where I belong from time to time), that's normal human behavior. What
the real issue is and what is something which should and have to be
solved, are the [cultural] norms, which the Board and the top
management should enforce (mostly, through the education of staff).

In that sense, it isn't productive to search for a scapegoat. The best
way for dealing with the issues like this one is to make a pressure on
Board and top management not to see something like this anymore.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
1 ... 45678