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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
123456 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Goldammer-2
Wow, this was definitely a huge brick they dropped there... It seems, the
WMF needs to hire someone (a diplomat) to counsel them about actions
towards the volunteers. (Seriously!)
Well, and when we are at it, the volunteer community might need a diplomat,
too, one who counsels them about actions and role of the WMF, before they
start complaining about any of it. :)

Anyway, nothing would have been lost if Gayle had written to the folks a
few weeks before the actual action was performed, informing that this is
the plan and why. It's not necessary, WMF owns the page and can do just
about everything there, but just for politeness it would have been nice.
And yes, the email that - seemingly selectively - got sent out was not
really diplomatic, either, it sounds much like "thanks, bye!". Or was there
any sort of emergency that made an immediate action indispensable? (A soon
explanation by Gayle would certainly be helpful there.)

Th.


2013/5/12 Casey Brown <[hidden email]>

> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM, K. Peachey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> For what it's worth, this didn't get sent out to everyone. I was a
> bureaucrat and administrator, and have the most edits on that wiki
> (afaik?), and wasn't notified. Like Huib, I was also in the batch of
> blog moderator removals and wasn't notified about that either.
>
> I'm not very active anymore, so it's not really a huge deal, but it's
> still bad form to have not gotten any kind of notification at all.
>
> --
> Casey Brown (Cbrown1023)
>
_______________________________________________
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)

Mono mium
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Goldammer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wow, this was definitely a huge brick they dropped there... It seems, the
> WMF needs to hire someone (a diplomat) to counsel them about actions
> towards the volunteers. (Seriously!)





Or was there
> any sort of emergency that made an immediate action indispensable? (A soon
> explanation by Gayle would certainly be helpful there.)
>
> Th.
>

 There was no emergency.
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2
Sue (or anyone from staff who is more precisely in charge for this), may
you just revert this and open discussion to reach more sensible solution?

I understand that there could be a good reason for this action, but the way
it's been handled is not the perfect one. And at least permissions on a
wiki are not hard to revert.
 On May 11, 2013 6:48 PM, "Sue Gardner" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gayle is travelling today and not online, so I'll take a crack at
> responding to this.
>
> The editors are responsible for the projects: the Wikimedia Foundation
> knows that, acknowledges it, and is deeply appreciative (as are all
> readers) for the work that volunteers do in the projects. The Wikimedia
> Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia Foundation wiki (and the blog).
> We are grateful to get community help there, and a small number of
> community members do really good work with us on both the WMF wiki and the
> blog. But ultimately that wiki, and the blog, are our responsibility, and
> we are accountable for making sure that e.g. the staff page, the Board
> bios, the resolution texts, etc., are maintained and in good shape. Most
> material on the WMF is not created via collaborative production processes
> -- it's "corporate" in nature, meaning that it is developed by the
> Wikimedia Foundation, for an audience of Wikimedia Foundation stakeholders,
> which includes community members and prospective community members, donors,
> readers of the projects, media, and others.
>
> My understanding is that administrator rights have been removed from a
> small number of volunteers, but that those people still have basic editing
> rights. My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who work on
> the Foundation wiki have been grateful (and are grateful) for the help
> they've gotten from community members in maintaining the Foundation wiki,
> and that we hope they'll continue to help us. They've been great, and we're
> grateful.
>
> But, my understanding is also that occasionally volunteers have overridden
> decisions made by staff on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I don't think
> that's ever been a huge problem: I don't think we've ever had a situation
> in which extensive discussion hasn't reached an okay conclusion. But, the
> extensive discussions --which, I understand, have typically been
> one-on-one, by which I mean, not a large number of community members or a
> community consensus against something the Foundation has wanted to do, but
> rather one volunteer disagreeing with something staff have been asked to do
> as part of their job --- occasionally, those discussions have been
> extremely time-consuming. That's not good. The staff working on the
> Wikimedia Foundation wiki have jobs they've got to get done, in support of
> the entire movement. If they spend days or weeks needing to persuade a
> single community member of the merits of something they want to do on the
> Foundation wiki, or if they need to modify their plans extensively to
> accommodate the opinions of a single community member, that reduces the
> amount of time available for them to do the rest of their work. Which, I
> repeat, is in the service of the movement overall.
>
> So I would say this:
>
> This decision is not about "the community" versus "the WMF." This decision
> is about the WMF staff, and making it possible for them to do their work on
> the WMF wiki with some reasonable degree of efficiency and effectiveness.
> This decision clarifies roles-and-responsibilities. On the projects, the
> volunteers are the editorial leads, and the WMF plays a supporting role by
> creating functionality, maintaining the servers, paying the bandwidth
> bills, and so forth. On the WMF wiki, the WMF is the editorial lead, and
> volunteers can (and do) play a supporting role helping staff organize
> pages, maintain pages, and so forth. That's a reasonable division, and I
> think having clarity around it is a good thing.
>
> Slightly more broadly: when the Wikimedia movement was very young,
> everybody did everything and there wasn't much division of
> roles-and-responsibilities. I remember when the Wikimedia Foundation
> budgets were prepared by volunteers, when the trademarks were managed by
> volunteers, and so forth. That was appropriate for the time, and even
> though it was messy, it was kind of great. Then we all went through a
> period in which roles-and-responsibilities were utterly unclear -- it
> wasn't at all obvious who should do what, and many
> roles-and-responsibilities were hotly disputed. Personally, I feel like
> we're moving into a period now in which things are getting clearer. We
> don't pay staff to edit the projects: staff who edit do it on their own
> time, as a hobby or special personal interest. We do pay staff to do things
> that are better done by staff than by volunteers, such as managing the
> trademark portfolio. Some volunteers (such as Domas) have very special
> privileges and powers, because they've proved over time they are
> exceptionally skilled. Some volunteers support the Wikimedia Foundation
> staff in their work in a variety of ways, because they've proved their
> interest and abilities. Some work happens in close partnership between
> staff and volunteers, such as production of blog posts, speaking with the
> media, and in projects such as the Global Ed one. Sometimes organized
> groups of volunteers are created by volunteers and supported by staff (e.g.
> ArbCom or AffCom) and sometimes organized groups of volunteers are created
> by the Wikimedia Foundation and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation (such
> as the FDC). Upshot: community members and Wikimedia Foundation staff work
> together in many different coordinated fashions. The ways on which we work
> together are becoming increasingly clear, and I think that clarity is good.
>
> So. People can disagree with this decision, and that's okay. But
> ultimately, the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia
> Foundation wiki: it's our job to figure out how best to manage and maintain
> it. That's what we're doing here.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
> On May 11, 2013 4:15 AM, "K. Peachey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
> >
> > ---
> > Dear XXX,
> > Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki.  At this time, we
> > are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> > is given only to staff and board.  I am having administrator access to
> > accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> > immediately.
> > Sincerely,
> > Gayle
> > --
> > Gayle Karen K. Young
> > Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415.310.8416
> > www.wikimediafoundation.org
> > ---
> >
> > Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> > ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> > about knowing what these people do on the wiki
> >
> > Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> > would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
> >
> > "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> > ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> > presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> > given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> > when they're needed for a specific task."
> >
> > Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> > as much thee days but it still happens.
> >
> > Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> > position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> > changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> > since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> > under the foundation)
> >
> > [1]. <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F
> > >
> > [2]. <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung
> > >
> > [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Thomas Goldammer-2
Yes, this.

I must admit, it's tremendously demotivating and makes me quite upset that
people like Aphaia, Anthere, Danny B. and Thehelpfulone, people who have
put hundreds if not thousands of hours of effort into this movement without
asking for a single cent, over many many years, are treated as risks to be
eliminated rather than assets to the movement whose input is to be
treasured.

My main objection is not to the actual act of removing these rights
(although as pointed out above by others, it seems to be a solution looking
for a problem), my main objection is the remarkably callous and hamfisted
way that it was executed.  In particular, I think that making a potentially
controversial change, and referring questions about that change to a
staffer who is "heading out of town and will be unresponsive for a few
days" is probably not good practice at all.

Does anyone from the Foundation honestly think this has been handled well?
 What lessons are there to be learned from this?

Cheers,
Craig



On 12 May 2013 10:31, Thomas Goldammer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Anyway, nothing would have been lost if Gayle had written to the folks a
> few weeks before the actual action was performed, informing that this is
> the plan and why. It's not necessary, WMF owns the page and can do just
> about everything there, but just for politeness it would have been nice.
> And yes, the email that - seemingly selectively - got sent out was not
> really diplomatic, either, it sounds much like "thanks, bye!". Or was there
> any sort of emergency that made an immediate action indispensable? (A soon
> explanation by Gayle would certainly be helpful there.)
>
> Th.
>
>
_______________________________________________
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)

Nathan Awrich
It's also worth noting this wasn't a last minute decision at all; its
foreshadowed in a number of comments by Philippe going back to
seemingly mid-March, and there may be warnings of it earlier. So the
WMF staff have been discussing this change internally for at least 6
weeks or so. That's a long time to not think up a better plan for
rolling it out.

_______________________________________________
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)

Craig Franklin
Well, perhaps there was extensive consultation from Phillippe and Gayle if
it had been planned over a long period of time and I just missed it.  If
that's the case, I'm sure that one of them will point it out for us first
thing on Monday morning, at which point I'd have to start removing egg from
my face ;-)

Cheers,
Craig


On 12 May 2013 14:15, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's also worth noting this wasn't a last minute decision at all; its
> foreshadowed in a number of comments by Philippe going back to
> seemingly mid-March, and there may be warnings of it earlier. So the
> WMF staff have been discussing this change internally for at least 6
> weeks or so. That's a long time to not think up a better plan for
> rolling it out.
>
_______________________________________________
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)

MZMcBride-2
Craig Franklin wrote:
>Well, perhaps there was extensive consultation from Philippe and Gayle if
>it had been planned over a long period of time and I just missed it.  If
>that's the case, I'm sure that one of them will point it out for us first
>thing on Monday morning, at which point I'd have to start removing egg
>from my face ;-)

Philippe has had time to go back and remove Phoebe's user rights and
Philippe has had time to post to this mailing list about the upcoming
Wikimedia elections, but he has chosen not to participate in this thread
at all about his actions.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
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)

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Seb35
On 5/11/13 8:01 PM, Seb35 wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this explanation.
>
> On the other side, wikis not only need content producers (here WMF) but
> also curators (wikignomes) who are sorting the pages, deleting and
> moving pages, typocorrecting, templating things, helping new users in
> formatting texts, etc. (I read some of the Florence’s blogposts :) --
> and not being admin restricts a lot the possible actions.

Yeah ! :-)

As a side note, Philippe has apparently restored my admin status (I did
not ask any special favor) upon the reason that I am on the Advisory Board.

But let me put it this way...

I do not buy the argument offered by Sue that "But, my understanding is
also that occasionally volunteers have overridden decisions made by
staff on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki."

Sorry Sue... but this is a very poor argument. If there is a problem
with ONE or TWO editors (was there at least two ?) then the way to go is
to talk with this editor, not to remove all volunteer administrators who
have been helping nicely for so many years.

In the past, we used to talk about soft security as opposed to hard
security. Hard security was about passwords, rights, filters, walls,
blocking, deleting and such. Soft security was about conversations, peer
reviews, reversions, recent changes, and other collaborative transparent
processes.
We have been going on for over 10 years primarily relying on soft
security. And it did not work so badly in the end. Because for one bad
person, and one confused, there were swarms of good people.
Is not that sad that staff decided that soft security was no more the
way to go, and that implementing hard security to prevent problems with
ONE or TWO people was a better way than relying upon dozen of good
people and spending a little bit of time discussing with the confused ?

The decision made by staff make it appear that volunteers are more an
inconvenience than a help.

I can not blame a staff member to feel this way if he had to spent some
time arguing with a volunteer whilst he had a mandate to do something
specific and the volunteer was preventing it (whether a good or bad
idea). It can be very annoying ;)

However, I feel that management and board should have a slightly higher
view on the matter and should realize how much they actually DO NEED the
volunteers to BE happy and to FEEL useful and appreciated (See the
recent discussion related to Wikimedia Hong Kong) and to reflect whether
the long term outcome of the decision to remove admin rights to
volunteers on the foundation wiki (and blog if I understood well) is a
good idea or not.


Alternatively, it might be good to really move as much as possible of
the Wikimedia Foundation Wiki to meta (where at least, the community is
in charge of who is admin and who is not).



Flo

PS: however, do note that it is a good idea to remove admin flags from
users who quit the community entirely.


_______________________________________________
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)

David Gerard-2
On 12 May 2013 18:47, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Alternatively, it might be good to really move as much as possible of the
> Wikimedia Foundation Wiki to meta (where at least, the community is in
> charge of who is admin and who is not).


This is a good idea anyway.

Having the WMF wiki become a staff-controlled operation is not an
outlandish or terrible idea - it's the official site of the nonprofit
itself, after all. But this was not a good way to do it.

That said, there are projects who do much worse. Here's GNOME's
attempt to win the XFree86 Memorial Award for Community Management for
2013: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=698544


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

Thehelpfulone
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 12 May 2013 18:47, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Alternatively, it might be good to really move as much as possible of the
> Wikimedia Foundation Wiki to meta (where at least, the community is in
> charge of who is admin and who is not).
>

Mostly in charge, there are a few exceptions where adminship has been
granted by WMF staff for their work without going through any formal
community procedures:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Administrators#Temporary_adminship_or_adminship_by_decree
.

--
Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
_______________________________________________
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)

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 5/12/13 8:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> On 12 May 2013 18:47, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, it might be good to really move as much as possible of the
>> Wikimedia Foundation Wiki to meta (where at least, the community is in
>> charge of who is admin and who is not).
>
>
> This is a good idea anyway.
>
> Having the WMF wiki become a staff-controlled operation is not an
> outlandish or terrible idea - it's the official site of the nonprofit
> itself, after all. But this was not a good way to do it.
>
> That said, there are projects who do much worse. Here's GNOME's
> attempt to win the XFree86 Memorial Award for Community Management for
> 2013: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=698544
>
>
> - d.

:) Yeah, pretty bad.

The main reason I would consider WMF wiki SHOULD NOT be an entirely
staff-controlled and operated site is the fact we originally wanted it
to be at least in part multilingual.

Current staff does not seem to be very interested in that original wish.

Some requests for translation are sometimes made but lot's of outdated
content is still over there. Sometimes, it does not matter too much.
Other times, it is quite unfortunate. Check out for example
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

Important ? yes
Should be translated ? I would say "yes, as much as possible"
Should old versions stick there ? I would say vehemently "no, should not"

Still, many languages still display the old version.
The staff will hide itself behind the fact that "only the English
version matters". Which is why Dutch is still the old version:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacybeleid
Is that good ? No, I would say it is "not serious".

Who can help clean that up ?
Well... if not the volunteers, then it would have to be the staff job.
Except I doubt the staff would consider that to be part of its job. If
only because staff does not speak 300 languages.

What's the best way to motivate volunteers to help with translation and
update of non-English content ? I am not sure, but probably not in
removing their admin bit as if they were dangerous people. Right now, I
would go as far as saying that WMF on the contrary should look out for
more people to help clean up ;)

How does that happen right now ? Well, volunteers do ask on meta to get
an account for WMF wiki. Where ? Here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_an_account_on_the_Foundation_wiki

And guess who is taking care of giving them access ?
A volunteer who has the technical means to create them accounts.
Oh wait... not any more. Ah, hum. Well, I take it a staff member will do
that in the future :)

-------

Alternatively, the staff, with the official support of their management
and the board can decide that the Foundation wiki should not try any
more to be translated in other languages and should stick to what it
actually is: a US-based non profit company.

Translations may be non-official... and on meta.

-------

The multilingualism we hoped so dearly has always been an issue. It is
poorly dealt with on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. Poorly dealt with on
the Foundation Wiki. Poorly dealt with on OTRS.

:(

Florence


_______________________________________________
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)

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Thehelpfulone
On 5/12/13 8:26 PM, Thehelpfulone wrote:

> On 12 May 2013 18:47, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, it might be good to really move as much as possible of the
>> Wikimedia Foundation Wiki to meta (where at least, the community is in
>> charge of who is admin and who is not).
>>
>
> Mostly in charge, there are a few exceptions where adminship has been
> granted by WMF staff for their work without going through any formal
> community procedures:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Administrators#Temporary_adminship_or_adminship_by_decree
>


I do not see that as a really problematic issue. Unfortunate, but not
really problematic. As long as the appointed admin behave within
community rules and does "good", there is only damage to our pride and
disrespect to the rules. But ... results over rules. Result is what
matters. Rules is only a way to get there.

A serious problem would be
* IF the staff was the one deciding who is admin generally
* IF the staff was boldly removing admin access to volunteers



Still, if you want to be a bit pointy, you should probably mention that
it is unclear why
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smazeland still
needs to be an admin

Flo



_______________________________________________
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)

Thehelpfulone
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 12 May 2013 19:44, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> :) Yeah, pretty bad.
>
> The main reason I would consider WMF wiki SHOULD NOT be an entirely
> staff-controlled and operated site is the fact we originally wanted it to
> be at least in part multilingual.
>
> Current staff does not seem to be very interested in that original wish.
>
> Some requests for translation are sometimes made but lot's of outdated
> content is still over there. Sometimes, it does not matter too much. Other
> times, it is quite unfortunate. Check out for example
> http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/Privacy_policy<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>
>
> Important ? yes
> Should be translated ? I would say "yes, as much as possible"
> Should old versions stick there ? I would say vehemently "no, should not"
>
> Still, many languages still display the old version.
> The staff will hide itself behind the fact that "only the English version
> matters". Which is why Dutch is still the old version:
> http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/Privacybeleid<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacybeleid>
> Is that good ? No, I would say it is "not serious".
>
> Who can help clean that up ?
> Well... if not the volunteers, then it would have to be the staff job.
> Except I doubt the staff would consider that to be part of its job. If only
> because staff does not speak 300 languages.
>
> What's the best way to motivate volunteers to help with translation and
> update of non-English content ? I am not sure, but probably not in removing
> their admin bit as if they were dangerous people. Right now, I would go as
> far as saying that WMF on the contrary should look out for more people to
> help clean up ;)
>
> How does that happen right now ? Well, volunteers do ask on meta to get an
> account for WMF wiki. Where ? Here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/**
> wiki/Request_for_an_account_**on_the_Foundation_wiki<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_an_account_on_the_Foundation_wiki>
>
> And guess who is taking care of giving them access ?
> A volunteer who has the technical means to create them accounts.
> Oh wait... not any more. Ah, hum. Well, I take it a staff member will do
> that in the future :)
>
> -------
>
> Alternatively, the staff, with the official support of their management
> and the board can decide that the Foundation wiki should not try any more
> to be translated in other languages and should stick to what it actually
> is: a US-based non profit company.
>
> Translations may be non-official... and on meta.
>
> -------
>
> The multilingualism we hoped so dearly has always been an issue. It is
> poorly dealt with on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. Poorly dealt with on
> the Foundation Wiki. Poorly dealt with on OTRS.
>
> :(
>

For what it's worth, I did try to get some re-translation organised in
early February: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WMF and
asked communications staff at the WMF for their input. To be fair to them
they did say that they'd look into it and get back to me but I think they
might have been swamped with other things so it was forgotten.
--
Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
_______________________________________________
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)

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Thehelpfulone, 12/05/2013 20:58:
> For what it's worth, I did try to get some re-translation organised in
> early February: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WMF and
> asked communications staff at the WMF for their input. To be fair to them
> they did say that they'd look into it and get back to me but I think they
> might have been swamped with other things so it was forgotten.

I don't think staff has ever touched translation on WMF wiki, it's
always been done by the almighty heroes Cbrown1023, Aphaia, Az1568 with
their gazillion edits and a few others. It's unfair to think they'd have
something to say.
Meta has the Translate extension, the translators and the community. At
this point it's clear that foundationwiki is going to rot, we should
just set up all the policies and important documents on Meta for
translation and start the work again; we've been stuck for too many
years now. Eventually, the links will go where the value is and nobody
will care about the wasteland at foundationwiki.

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] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 12.05.2013 20:44, Florence Devouard wrote:

> The multilingualism we hoped so dearly has always been an issue. It
> is poorly dealt with on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. Poorly dealt
> with on the Foundation Wiki. Poorly dealt with on OTRS.
>
> :(
>
> Florence
>

If someone approaches me and asks to write a blog post about the
Russian Wikivoyage (where I happen to be an admin) I could do it in two
or three languages. (I certainly can survive if nobody does).

On the other hand if I only write it in Russian - would it be such a
good idea? From what I know, the number of Russian Wikimedians who read
the blog on a regular basis is measured by a single digit.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
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)

Florence Devouard-3
On 5/12/13 9:28 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

> On 12.05.2013 20:44, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>> The multilingualism we hoped so dearly has always been an issue. It
>> is poorly dealt with on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. Poorly dealt
>> with on the Foundation Wiki. Poorly dealt with on OTRS.
>>
>> :(
>>
>> Florence
>>
>
> If someone approaches me and asks to write a blog post about the Russian
> Wikivoyage (where I happen to be an admin) I could do it in two or three
> languages. (I certainly can survive if nobody does).
>
> On the other hand if I only write it in Russian - would it be such a
> good idea? From what I know, the number of Russian Wikimedians who read
> the blog on a regular basis is measured by a single digit.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav

Fortunately, we know that "numbers" is not always what matters ;)

Flo



_______________________________________________
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)

Philippe Beaudette-2
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
That is correct. Because despite your attempts to turn me into the
decision making authority here, I wasn't. You don't need to talk to
the worker bee who executed, you want to talk to the person who made
the decision. That's not me. And she is traveling.

And also, you know, I'm working brutal hours right now and yeah, I
wanted to try to not be posting this weekend. I had to deal with my
mistake in not removing Phoebes rights at the same time and I had to
deal with an elections thing. But was I anxious to come wading into a
situation where - despite you clearly being told that I wasn't a
decision maker - you continue to (for whatever reason) advance the
asinine position that someone must be pulling gayles strings and
therefore it must be me because I am evil?  No, you know, MZ, I didn't
come skipping gleefully to that conversation.

Let me be clear: I respect the work that you do. But I have zero time
for your distortions of the situation when you've been told that it
wasn't my decision.

You want an explanation?  I'm sure that Gayle will offer one. But for
the umpteenth time, I was the person pushing the button because
someone had to be. So lets leave my motivations out of this okay?  I'm
spending hundreds of hours per month fighting to support the volunteer
community here and your assignations to the contrary are insulting.

PB

—————————
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc



On May 12, 2013, at 10:06 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Philippe has had time to go back and remove Phoebe's user rights and
> Philippe has had time to post to this mailing list about the upcoming
> Wikimedia elections, but he has chosen not to participate in this thread
> at all about his actions.

_______________________________________________
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)

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Philippe Beaudette, 12/05/2013 22:23:
> [...] You want an explanation?  I'm sure that Gayle will offer one. But for
> the umpteenth time, I was the person pushing the button because
> someone had to be. So lets leave my motivations out of this okay?  I'm
> spending hundreds of hours per month fighting to support the volunteer
> community here and your assignations to the contrary are insulting.

Philippe, you're right, but MZ is obviously too angry and personally
involved right now to take his words too literally and personally
against you. The most he could ask from you is a comment on how
frequently you have to be the one "pushing the button" against the
community. (Very often, is my guess.)

As for the decisions, it's clear that they come from the top and what
they mean. Assuming that a board of trustees still exist (hey, did the
bylaws amendment to keep you functioning have a weird effect and send
you all to outer space?), they're maybe the ones who could have
something more to say?

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] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette-2
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>You want an explanation?  I'm sure that Gayle will offer one. But for
>the umpteenth time, I was the person pushing the button because
>someone had to be.

Why did you feel compelled to act here when it wasn't your decision? Was
there something preventing Gayle from doing this herself?

It's pretty strange to involve yourself in this decision (that wasn't
yours) and then turn around and say "well why are you pointing at me?!"
You were raised in a wiki culture, just as I was, where an individual is
responsible for the actions of his or her account. You obviously felt an
obligation to act here. What remains unclear is why.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
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)

Federico Leva (Nemo)
MZMcBride, 12/05/2013 22:45:
> Why did you feel compelled to act here when it wasn't your decision? Was
> there something preventing Gayle from doing this herself?

Be honest, if Gayle had done this herself you would have said that maybe
she hadn't read the documentation on Special:UserRights carefully and it
was a mistake. :)

>
> It's pretty strange to involve yourself in this decision (that wasn't
> yours) and then turn around and say "well why are you pointing at me?!"
> You were raised in a wiki culture, just as I was, where an individual is
> responsible for the actions of his or her account. You obviously felt an
> obligation to act here. What remains unclear is why.

To me it's very clear, nobody wanted to take responsibility or blame for
the decision(*) so they let someone who's going out of town take the
blame, someone in another department press the button, and the top
management cover everything with flimsy rhetoric. Next time they could
do better, the act could be executed before a longer holiday or be
spread across more departments (a third person to send the notification
emails, or a deflag squad of 14 staffers as with fusillading). But no
worries, the WMF is still a young org and is learning.

Nemo

(*) Which may have been discussed for several weeks, as Nathan pointed out.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
123456 ... 8