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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
12345678
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 10:45 PM, MZMcBride wrote:

> 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

Why = contractual agreement with his employer. He may have been "raised"
in the wiki culture, he has obligations as staff.

Give Philippe a break MZMcBride. You are obviously unhappy and there are
reasons for that; But giving Philippe the bad ride is not the way to go.
Take a break, drink a tea, grab chocolate, watch a movie, have a walk.
Anything. It is Sunday anyway.

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)

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette-2
Thanks for clarifying this Phillippe.

I must say that I think this discussion is becoming unpleasantly personal
(and my initial email on the topic probably didn't help there, I concede).
 How about we stop pointing fingers at each other and conduct an honest and
transparent appraisal of what has happened with a view to learning lessons
from it so that it doesn't happen again.  I also have to point out that
while it's not ideal at all that this happened late on a Friday afternoon
when everyone was leaving the office, nor is it reasonable to expect paid
staff to snap to and respond on the weekends during their personal time.
 The damage has been done now, and it's not so urgent an issue that it
can't wait until Monday for a response.

Cheers,
Craig


On 13 May 2013 06:23, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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)

Marc-Andre
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On 05/12/2013 04:42 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> 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.

Again with this meme!

"Against the community".

*NOBODY* works "against the community".  Sometimes, we do things that
displease part, or most of the community.  Sometimes, there are
mistakes, flubbed judgment calls, and boneheaded gaffes.  By accident,
confusion or miscommunication, the community might have been harmed.
Occasionally, even, someone acts like a human and does something in
anger or stupidity that was clearly wrong in retrospect.

But "Against the community" means seeing the community as an adversary,
and acting to undermine or harm it.  The very *attitude* necessary to
say this is what causes those problems, trying to paint "Us vs. Them" on
what should be collaboration.

If you think Philippe - or through him Gayle - did what they did
"against the community", then you have already have abandoned any
pretense of good faith towards the foundation and towards them
personally.  Unless you can back your assertions of malice, please take
them elsewhere.

</rant>

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
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)

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2
On 12/05/13 02:48, Sue Gardner wrote:
> 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 it was a response to a particular conflict?

> 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.

Let's hope so. But in my experience, stripping titles such as
"administrator" from volunteers is an excellent way to get them to
leave. It's not really about the technical privileges, these titles
are a recognition of good work done, and a symbol of trust, and are
one of the few rewards we give to volunteers. Stripping privileges
from a volunteer is upsetting, and undermines their core motivation
for contributing.

So I can appreciate that the conflict needed to be resolved, but I
have to wonder whether this was the best way to go about it.

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
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)

Gayle Karen Young
In reply to this post by Tomasz W. Kozlowski
Hello folks,

So... I caught bits of this while I was on layover between plane flights,
so I've had time to have the multiple reactions that one has (nothing like
an 11-hour flight to think about a situation). I've had time to feel
defensive, insulted, opened, humbled, curious, thoughtful, regretful,
optimistic...

This is an earnest “I'm sorry, I'll do better” and I don't perfectly know
what that looks like yet, because I (and I suspect like you) go from day to
day within in a complex life trying to do the best I can. I'll respond more
later, as I've got some scheduled time a way and like all human beings I
need it, but will circle back when I return to work next Monday.

I was thinking that I would be a very different person if I never made
mistakes. :) In fact, contemplation of that is rather funny if any of you
know me or the circumstances of my life. I could have done the process
differently.

I DO sometimes forget we're all on the same side. That's a darned shame. I
do it sometimes because part of my job is to deal with how beleaguered some
members (not all – I'm trying to find my way back to nuance and ask you to
too) because sometimes they ask me for help, because I deal every day with
burnout and chaos and challenging interpersonal dynamics, and I see some of
the downright abusive messages that no person (staff or admin or user or
each and any one of you reading this) should be subject to while pursuing
work they love. (I also get to see some of the grateful messages, the way
we support one another, not just tear people down. That part is /awesome/.)

I find our staff and volunteers that I've worked with remarkable - people
who I'm ridiculously grateful to work with and for.  And I have no doubt
that some of you have experienced staff (myself included) in ways I'm blind
to, and I think there's room for all of us to get better. But I wish people
could see how, even though it's our job, it can be sometimes just
exhausting to try to please so many different voices. Some of you may think
that the Foundation doesn't think about the community – and I think we
sometimes listen so much that it's a little crazy because, as has been
explained to us, the community is not one voice, not one thing, not one
person. It's a vast, beautiful, sometimes conflicted, sometimes coordinated
people working on this enormous shared endeavor. So it's not that community
is not worth listening to, but how and where and to what pieces, and how do
we get better at it and how do we amplify the constructive voices and not
let deconstructive voices (both within the Foundation and without) tear us
down because this work is hard. All our work is hard. I do appreciate the
volunteers who have stepped and kept things going when I was personally at
capacity.

When I read that I need to remember just who pays my salary, I think a
whole bunch of things (and have the various reactions I have, where both
assume good faith that someone means that and I also look at the
possibility that it was meant to be insulting and provoking). And at the
end of the day, millions of people do and hundreds of thousands of editors
help make that happen. I don't forget that. I do think that I am called to
this role because on my best days, it uses me well – it uses my skills and
knowledge and abilities in ways that I hope are good for the world. I am
not anyone's servant (except perhaps for this cause), and I am deeply
listening.

So sometimes I forget we're on the same side, and thank you for reminding
me. Thank you for the temperate voices, the ones who present a point of
view I hadn't considered. As you can likely imagine, I hear more that way.
Most people do.

Someone mentioned that it's easier to lay good ground than to fix something
in retrospect, and that most certainly is very, very true. :) (I really
dislike that other people had to answer for me while I was out of
commission - and my own fault for doing something on my to-do list the
Friday before leaving town. Totally get that.)

So...listening, thinking... also tired, but optimistic, and I hope and want
to keep doing better. This definitely feels like a bit of trial by fire.

Warmest regards,

Gayle



--
Gayle Karen K. Young
Chief Talent and Culture Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.310.8416
www.wikimediafoundation.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] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Alex Zariv-2
In reply to this post by Tomasz W. Kozlowski
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I'm going to have to agree with Casey on this. I
also received absolutely zero notification or warning as a longtime
bureaucrat and administrator that my rights were to be removed on WMF wiki
or the foundation's blog.

We should have been reached out to directly and have been informed of this
decision. Even if there was little about it that we could change.

Alex
_______________________________________________
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 Gayle Karen Young
Gayle Karen Young wrote:

> Hello folks,

[...]

> Gayle

So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.

        -- 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)

Nathan Awrich
Anyone who has spent time on the projects knows that the tone is often
awful. The disputes can be bitter, no matter the small stakes, and
many people are remarkably quick to snap irritably or to offend
indiscriminately. It's been observed that this can have a negative
effect on the most regular recipients of wiki bile; some English
Wikipedia administrators have had notoriously little patience with
others, and the environment can be so famously toxic that a policy is
necessary to remind us to assume good faith on the part of others. So
Gayle's reaction to the conflicting needs, methods and attitudes of
the "community" is understandable.

But a big part of the solution is as simple as the golden rule - do
unto others as we would have them do unto you. If you are interacting
with a staff member or a volunteer, or making a decision that might
affect them, think about how they might react to you. Then imagine how
you would want to be treated in their position, or if its easier
imagine that the other person is in the office next to you and is
someone you might see every day. It's hard to legislate by policy the
types of behaviors that might make relations between the WMF and the
"community" better, but surely this is one step that is simple if not
easy.

~Nathan

_______________________________________________
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)

theo10011
In reply to this post by Tomasz W. Kozlowski
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <[hidden email]
> wrote:

>
> So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
> any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.


Try and be a bit nicer please. Gayle is still relatively new and this level
of scrutiny might be jarring for someone. I'm not sure what the expectation
was here, it wasn't going to be a grand plan or a hidden explanation for
this action. Sue and Erik gave their versions, so as far as explanations
go, if Philippe said he was the button pusher, Gayle could have argued she
was merely the one who authorized the button pushing. I kind of like that
she didn't take that route.

I don't think there's anywhere else to go from here. I suppose now it comes
down to futile arguments over levels of culpability. At the most, there was
malicious intent against Mz, where his removal alone was the eventual goal,
and a policy had to be erected or modified to facilitate that. The rest
might have been an amalgamation of inactive users and bystanders who got
caught on either side of it. It's sad if it had to come down to that.
Admins like THO and Mz, are godsend.

At the very least, this was handled poorly. I don't think anyone including
the executives would disagree with that one. Perhaps a courtesy note - a
thank you, a warning, some time in between - would have made the world of a
difference. Maybe the problem itself instead of the person could have been
isolated, and talked out. I still have a sneaking suspicion that Gayle
didn't realize what she was getting into.

I also think that people reading this are missing a lot of the context and
history here. Before the removal of his rights, Mz made ~2000 edits on that
wiki this year. A lot of them are tedious edits which no one really does
from the foundation's side. I think he's been working on his Manana list
since 2009[1] for that wiki.

For those that might not know him, even a cursory look at Mz's meta or
en.wp talk page would reveal that his time is valued as it is in other
places. It's filled with people asking for help with bots, db queries,
Mediawiki, small hacks and what not, he can certainly do a heck of a lot
more than an average technically-inept editor like me can. Mz also has his
own charm, and for the people who know him, love him for it. A few staff
members though, do seem immune to that exposure and do tend to lock horns
occasionally.

The two years that I have known Philippe and Mz (and strangely both were
among the first people I interacted with), they have had more than a few
contentious moments. Philippe might have a tendency to be a bit more prone
to control (IMO). I have also seen him discuss issues about staff rights,
and who has access where for a long while. It wouldn't be surprising to
learn that this removal, and policy change was in the offing. Perhaps, the
issue got exacerbated with Zack and Erik's concerns (something about HTML
insertions?) about the fundraising infrastructure residing on WMF wiki, who
knows.

Regards
Theo

[1]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Ma%C3%B1ana
_______________________________________________
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)

Russavia
In reply to this post by Gayle Karen Young
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Gayle Karen Young <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This definitely feels like a bit of trial by fire.

True dat. Now that you have received your initiation, there's nothing
left to say but WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA :)

Cheers,

Russavia

_______________________________________________
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-3
So, I took Florence's excellent advice and went for a walk (beautiful day
in SF, by the way - absolutely perfect).

And I reflected on what I've seen since "flipping the switch" on things
last Friday.  Here's where I stand, and I haven't discussed this with
anyone else at WMF, including Gayle.

At the expense of sounding trite, I think I can safely say "Mistakes were
made."  Gayle was trying to solve a real problem, and she got a lot of
advice on how to do that.  But the principle role of a staff member in a
role such as mine is "to advise", I think, and I'm afraid that I didn't
offer good advice in this case.  I don't think I gave bad advice - rather,
I didn't give as good of advice as I could have.  What our leadership
should be able to expect from staff is that we look at things from a
different perspective, and I think I failed to get as far out of my own
head and into other peoples' to offer that varying perspective.  So when I
say that mistakes were made, I include my role in that, through commission
or omission, and I sincerely apologize for that.

With that said: I'm afraid we're headed toward a precipice.  What I'm
seeing scares me.  I see less and less good faith being offered toward the
WMF.  One of the arguments that doesn't work for me is "seven years ago the
WMF didn't make these mistakes" - because seven years ago the WMF was
paralyzed from lack of strategy and direction.  All of that has changed and
the WMF is out and aggressively trying things to arrest the editor decline
and improve the user experience.  And yet, when our talented engineers try
a data-driven tactic for something that needs to change, they're lambasted
for forgetting the existing community.  And yet everyone here knows that if
we don't change some things, things will get very very ugly, very very
quickly.

One of the things that must continue to change is the tone on the wikis,
and the tone (in IRC and by email) between staff and volunteers.  I know
that volunteers are individual and - in addition to several frankly abusive
emails I've received this weekend, I've also received absolutely wonderful
support from volunteers who reached out to make me smile, laugh, or just
remind me why I love this community.  But the abusive ones absolutely
*must*stop.  I have never once, in my entire time at WMF, sent an
email that
approaches the level of things that I see WMF staff subjected to routinely,
and I have to counsel over and over that "it's okay, they don't speak for
the community", but I see the community tacitly support that behavior (or
fail to condemn it), and it's hard to say with a straight face that the
people sending abusive mail or making abusive statements in IRC don't speak
for the community.

So my challenge and my promise:  I promise to reflect on the experiences of
this weekend and figure out how I could have offered Gayle better advice,
given the circumstances, and given the fact that there are some things that
are not public about the decision, and unfortunately they can't be.  My
challenge to the community:  think about the tone of what you see happening
around you.  And if you wouldn't want to see your grandmother asked a
question like that, and if it would make you feel defensive to see her
questioned in that tone, then step in and make it clear that the tone is
unacceptable.  Staff members are people too.  How about finding one that
has done something you appreciate (come on, there must be ONE) and tell
them so?  You'd be shocked how much gratitude they'll feel, because you may
be the first community member EVER to tell them that.

Best,
pb



___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

[hidden email]


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Russavia <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Gayle Karen Young <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > This definitely feels like a bit of trial by fire.
>
> True dat. Now that you have received your initiation, there's nothing
> left to say but WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

Everton Zanella Alvarenga-3
Hi Philippe,

your message just reminds me a recent message I sent here and a
general feeling about sometimes the wiki community only stressing the
negative aspects and mistakes we all do (contractors, staff,
volunteers etc.)

* Highlight the positive aspects and multicultural comparisons
<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125361.html>

I must tell it can also be difficult for the community to realise the
amount of work done by WMF professionals (and it is really difficult
to share this), summed up with this environment of distrust makes the
situation be like we are seeing here in this most recent wikidrama,
that can be solved with some patience and, as you are doing here,
messages after a little walk away from the computer no thursty to be
the last voice. :)

It is curious this agressive nature of the momevement seems also to
happen in soem other local communities - at least is what I see at the
Portuguese Wikipedia and some volunteers more involved with offline
activities (no visual editor or similar initiatives will solve that
;).

My best wishes for this particular case and I hope you and other
colleagues will be treated with respect. I know how hard it is after
working hard and beeing kicked in the ass all the time, sometimes by
the very same people, who work hard as volunteers, but put themselves
as gods because of that. (and hey, it is even harder when you also
worked for years as a volunteer)

Tom

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Philippe Beaudette
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> So, I took Florence's excellent advice and went for a walk (beautiful day
> in SF, by the way - absolutely perfect).
>
> And I reflected on what I've seen since "flipping the switch" on things
> last Friday.  Here's where I stand, and I haven't discussed this with
> anyone else at WMF, including Gayle.
>
> At the expense of sounding trite, I think I can safely say "Mistakes were
> made."  Gayle was trying to solve a real problem, and she got a lot of
> advice on how to do that.  But the principle role of a staff member in a
> role such as mine is "to advise", I think, and I'm afraid that I didn't
> offer good advice in this case.  I don't think I gave bad advice - rather,
> I didn't give as good of advice as I could have.  What our leadership
> should be able to expect from staff is that we look at things from a
> different perspective, and I think I failed to get as far out of my own
> head and into other peoples' to offer that varying perspective.  So when I
> say that mistakes were made, I include my role in that, through commission
> or omission, and I sincerely apologize for that.
>
> With that said: I'm afraid we're headed toward a precipice.  What I'm
> seeing scares me.  I see less and less good faith being offered toward the
> WMF.  One of the arguments that doesn't work for me is "seven years ago the
> WMF didn't make these mistakes" - because seven years ago the WMF was
> paralyzed from lack of strategy and direction.  All of that has changed and
> the WMF is out and aggressively trying things to arrest the editor decline
> and improve the user experience.  And yet, when our talented engineers try
> a data-driven tactic for something that needs to change, they're lambasted
> for forgetting the existing community.  And yet everyone here knows that if
> we don't change some things, things will get very very ugly, very very
> quickly.
>
> One of the things that must continue to change is the tone on the wikis,
> and the tone (in IRC and by email) between staff and volunteers.  I know
> that volunteers are individual and - in addition to several frankly abusive
> emails I've received this weekend, I've also received absolutely wonderful
> support from volunteers who reached out to make me smile, laugh, or just
> remind me why I love this community.  But the abusive ones absolutely
> *must*stop.  I have never once, in my entire time at WMF, sent an
> email that
> approaches the level of things that I see WMF staff subjected to routinely,
> and I have to counsel over and over that "it's okay, they don't speak for
> the community", but I see the community tacitly support that behavior (or
> fail to condemn it), and it's hard to say with a straight face that the
> people sending abusive mail or making abusive statements in IRC don't speak
> for the community.
>
> So my challenge and my promise:  I promise to reflect on the experiences of
> this weekend and figure out how I could have offered Gayle better advice,
> given the circumstances, and given the fact that there are some things that
> are not public about the decision, and unfortunately they can't be.  My
> challenge to the community:  think about the tone of what you see happening
> around you.  And if you wouldn't want to see your grandmother asked a
> question like that, and if it would make you feel defensive to see her
> questioned in that tone, then step in and make it clear that the tone is
> unacceptable.  Staff members are people too.  How about finding one that
> has done something you appreciate (come on, there must be ONE) and tell
> them so?  You'd be shocked how much gratitude they'll feel, because you may
> be the first community member EVER to tell them that.
>
> Best,
> pb
>
>
>
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> [hidden email]




--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
"A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more
useful than a life spent doing nothing."

_______________________________________________
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)

Casey Brown-5
In reply to this post by theo10011
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Theo10011 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Try and be a bit nicer please. Gayle is still relatively new and this level
> of scrutiny might be jarring for someone.

Comments like these have always bothered me.

Gayle isn't some random secretary or new run-of-the-mill employee. She
is a C-level staff member who has been here for more than a year and
made a policy decision that people have feedback on. While the
feedback may not have come in the nicest form, it is still valid and
we can't just ignore it because "it wasn't nice enough". As a high
level staff member in charge of your own department, you need to deal
with it -- this is one thing that comes with the job, unfortunately.
It's an insult to Gayle to assume that she will not be able to handle
criticism or answer people's responses. A C-level staff member needs
to be able to handle this "scrutiny", even high level scrutiny, when
they were the one that made the call, and I'm sure she's more than
capable of doing that.

[Note that I'm speaking generally -- I personally think Gayle can
handle criticism and she seems very nice. She also probably had no
idea this would create dramz. My comment is directed towards the
general "omg think of the staff member!" response to criticism that is
systemic in our movement.]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Philippe Beaudette
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> With that said: I'm afraid we're headed toward a precipice.  What I'm
> seeing scares me.  I see less and less good faith being offered toward the
> WMF.

This is something that bothers me too.

The situation is always framed as "poor WMF". Yes, it is true that bad
faith is assumed on both sides, but I don't really think the community
(including the chapters) is the only one doing that. A lot of the
reason the community responds with such little faith or with such
outrage at the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation is because they do
not afford them any good faith either -- the community is simply
acting on the defensive. Many decisions are just handed out, are
half-baked, or are handled behind closed doors, so people have no idea
how to respond and feel no ownership.

If people have no control over a situation, the only way to respond is
to point fingers and complain. We all work on things together -- there
aren't many areas that are exclusively community or WMF. If you don't
let the community do anything to fix a problem or constructively
contribute to bettering the situation, you're going to find yourself
stuck with a lot of bad faith and complaining.

Take the WMFwiki policy decision for example -- was it really
necessary to discuss everything behind closed doors? Did the action
need to be taken two hours before the work week ended and before the
"decision maker" would be out of reach? We're always painting the
Wikimedia Foundation as the victim, but we're forgetting that they
definitely have their share of the blame. I realize that we're all
human, but, at the end of the day, the Foundation *should* be held to
a higher standard -- they are being paid to learn from their mistakes,
get things done correctly, and handle criticism. If something is going
to be controversial, it should not be done on a Friday before work
ends and then say no one can respond until Monday when someone
critiques it.

[Again: I'm speaking more generally. I don't personally care that much
about the WMFwiki issue, since I'm not active much anymore.]

We definitely have an agency issue here. The volunteers and the
community should not be viewed as a lone "aggressor" -- they're who
the Foundation ultimately report to: Staff => ED => Board =>
Community. The readers and donors are clear stakeholders, but the
community is at the top of the pyramid. The Foundation is not
completely innocent, but when things go wrong, we can't just call the
community out for complaining and then ignore the reason for that
complaint.

--
Casey Brown (Cbrown1023)
caseybrown.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] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Casey Brown, 13/05/2013 07:05:
> [...] [Note that I'm speaking generally -- I personally think Gayle can
> handle criticism and she seems very nice. She also probably had no
> idea this would create dramz. My comment is directed towards the
> general "omg think of the staff member!" response to criticism that is
> systemic in our movement.]

Still, "omg think of the staff member!" seems to be the point Gayle and
Philippe make on this thread. If history teaches something, I guess the
board will soon approve a resolution to request the development of a
Personal Communitymember Filter to AT LAST hide all that offensive
content in our community. MediaWiki-mailman integration offers some
challenges, but our commitment to openness will swiftly help, shutting
down more mailing lists in favour of wiki discussions.

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)

James Alexander-3
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-5
*

I'm just going to top post here because responding to you in line won't be
helpful to anybody.The staff ARE held to a higher standard, they are held
to a higher standard day in and day out. If you don't think they are then
you're blind. They get attacked at a level that is NOTHING compared to what
they do or dish out NOTHING. They hold back because they're staff and they
should hold back.

Can the foundation get better? Of course it can, is every single thing
Philippe said still true? Yes, in fact I'd probably be harsher about it.
I'm sometimes embarrassed to be from the community when I read the mailing
list and, less often, on wiki. Even I have to sit down on my hands, calm
down, have a cup of tea and then go on damage control explaining to other
staff members that we need to get better but that the community isn't
nearly as bad as it seems sometimes. I have to remind myself that I'm not
lying when I tell them that it isn't the entire community yelling at them,
just a dozen or two on a mailing list and that they don't represent
everyone. There is no doubt that the Foundation can get better in many
areas, but I will 100% stand by my statement that the way that some
portions of the community (that tend to congregate on the mailing lists and
certain areas on wiki)  is embarrassing and insane. Given some of the
statements that are made I'm not actually sure staff SHOULD respond to
those people, yet they still do in the end because they're staff, and
they're held to a higher standard.

Is it true that some of this is 'the wiki way' and they should 'get used to
it' because 'that's how we treat ourselves'? I'd say that 99%+ of the wiki
isn't anywhere near as bad though I sadly admit that some of it is though
most realize that's bad. The lack of civility on wiki has been a long
running problem we have all known about, yet for some reason some people
have decided that targeting the staff is fair game.

In the US, and most countries I know, employers have a legal obligation to
ensure a "healthy working environment" both physical and emotional. The
working environment for our staff is NOT always emotionally healthy.
*
*
*
*James*
*

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Theo10011 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Try and be a bit nicer please. Gayle is still relatively new and this
> level
> > of scrutiny might be jarring for someone.
>
> Comments like these have always bothered me.
>
> Gayle isn't some random secretary or new run-of-the-mill employee. She
> is a C-level staff member who has been here for more than a year and
> made a policy decision that people have feedback on. While the
> feedback may not have come in the nicest form, it is still valid and
> we can't just ignore it because "it wasn't nice enough". As a high
> level staff member in charge of your own department, you need to deal
> with it -- this is one thing that comes with the job, unfortunately.
> It's an insult to Gayle to assume that she will not be able to handle
> criticism or answer people's responses. A C-level staff member needs
> to be able to handle this "scrutiny", even high level scrutiny, when
> they were the one that made the call, and I'm sure she's more than
> capable of doing that.
>
> [Note that I'm speaking generally -- I personally think Gayle can
> handle criticism and she seems very nice. She also probably had no
> idea this would create dramz. My comment is directed towards the
> general "omg think of the staff member!" response to criticism that is
> systemic in our movement.]
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > With that said: I'm afraid we're headed toward a precipice.  What I'm
> > seeing scares me.  I see less and less good faith being offered toward
> the
> > WMF.
>
> This is something that bothers me too.
>
> The situation is always framed as "poor WMF". Yes, it is true that bad
> faith is assumed on both sides, but I don't really think the community
> (including the chapters) is the only one doing that. A lot of the
> reason the community responds with such little faith or with such
> outrage at the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation is because they do
> not afford them any good faith either -- the community is simply
> acting on the defensive. Many decisions are just handed out, are
> half-baked, or are handled behind closed doors, so people have no idea
> how to respond and feel no ownership.
>
> If people have no control over a situation, the only way to respond is
> to point fingers and complain. We all work on things together -- there
> aren't many areas that are exclusively community or WMF. If you don't
> let the community do anything to fix a problem or constructively
> contribute to bettering the situation, you're going to find yourself
> stuck with a lot of bad faith and complaining.
>
> Take the WMFwiki policy decision for example -- was it really
> necessary to discuss everything behind closed doors? Did the action
> need to be taken two hours before the work week ended and before the
> "decision maker" would be out of reach? We're always painting the
> Wikimedia Foundation as the victim, but we're forgetting that they
> definitely have their share of the blame. I realize that we're all
> human, but, at the end of the day, the Foundation *should* be held to
> a higher standard -- they are being paid to learn from their mistakes,
> get things done correctly, and handle criticism. If something is going
> to be controversial, it should not be done on a Friday before work
> ends and then say no one can respond until Monday when someone
> critiques it.
>
> [Again: I'm speaking more generally. I don't personally care that much
> about the WMFwiki issue, since I'm not active much anymore.]
>
> We definitely have an agency issue here. The volunteers and the
> community should not be viewed as a lone "aggressor" -- they're who
> the Foundation ultimately report to: Staff => ED => Board =>
> Community. The readers and donors are clear stakeholders, but the
> community is at the top of the pyramid. The Foundation is not
> completely innocent, but when things go wrong, we can't just call the
> community out for complaining and then ignore the reason for that
> complaint.
>
> --
> Casey Brown (Cbrown1023)
> caseybrown.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Casey Brown, 13/05/2013 07:05:
>
>> [...] [Note that I'm speaking generally -- I personally think Gayle can
>>
>> handle criticism and she seems very nice. She also probably had no
>> idea this would create dramz. My comment is directed towards the
>> general "omg think of the staff member!" response to criticism that is
>> systemic in our movement.]
>>
>
> Still, "omg think of the staff member!" seems to be the point Gayle and
> Philippe make on this thread. If history teaches something, I guess the
> board will soon approve a resolution to request the development of a
> Personal Communitymember Filter to AT LAST hide all that offensive content
> in our community. MediaWiki-mailman integration offers some challenges, but
> our commitment to openness will swiftly help, shutting down more mailing
> lists in favour of wiki discussions.
>
> Nemo
>

Au contraire, I feel we should all earn some kind of barnstar just for
participating in this discussion/situation. You know, it's kind of the
ultimate Wikimedian tempest: arguing over who gets to add users and delete
pages on what is quite possibly the world's most boring wiki[1]...

It's also a quintessentially Wikimedian debate because there's all this
subtext -- assumed but not articulated -- that isn't minor at all: about
community ownership versus corporate control, about who has authority to
make decisions in what sphere, about the role volunteers play in the
organization, over what personal reputation means on the projects, over
what admin rights mean, what kind of work environment the staff have, etc..
I'm gonna take a stab in the dark here and guess that Gayle wasn't
intending to start a debate on all these big important topics, or even
perhaps to comment on them at all. I'm also gonna say from experience that
it's often damn hard to wade into these waters and take an action *without*
touching off a debate on all these subjects. As someone said upthread, the
golden rule does help, as does practice working with the wiki way, and
knowing all the personal ins and outs of Wikimedia and our arcane culture.
But *even that* doesn't always save someone from making an unpopular
decision, or from screwing up or not thinking through all the ways they
might be wading into a minefield -- and that goes for all of us, staff,
board, & community alike. Hey, ask me how I know.

Sheesh, being part of the world's biggest collaborative project is hard
sometimes.

-- phoebe


1. I exempt, of course, the internal wiki at my workplace, which has won
the crown many years running.
_______________________________________________
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)

theo10011
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-5
Hi Casey

First, I miss seeing you around, in case you are not omnipresent anymore.

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Theo10011 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Try and be a bit nicer please. Gayle is still relatively new and this
> level
> > of scrutiny might be jarring for someone.
>
> Comments like these have always bothered me.
>
> Gayle isn't some random secretary or new run-of-the-mill employee. She
> is a C-level staff member who has been here for more than a year and
> made a policy decision that people have feedback on. While the
> feedback may not have come in the nicest form, it is still valid and
> we can't just ignore it because "it wasn't nice enough". As a high
> level staff member in charge of your own department, you need to deal
> with it -- this is one thing that comes with the job, unfortunately.
> It's an insult to Gayle to assume that she will not be able to handle
> criticism or answer people's responses. A C-level staff member needs
> to be able to handle this "scrutiny", even high level scrutiny, when
> they were the one that made the call, and I'm sure she's more than
> capable of doing that.
>
>
Fair point. I'll concede that one, I might have a soft spot for certain
people for no apparent reason. Out of anyone else affected perhaps you're
truly the really slighted party in all of this, and it really wouldn't be
my place to tell you to be nicer.

I still find out in bits and pieces how many things Casey handled. You and
Cary made these issues disappear and made a lot more currently broken
things function. The cracks seem to be showing more these days, which lends
credence to a theory that you and Cary might have acted as buffer points on
some of these things. As both of you became more inactive, minor things
start generating more friction.

Perhaps, it's a bit of maturity that makes the difference here, but there
is no real-world implication of "C-Level" - they have these tiers that
supposedly imply something in staff but they aren't born different or sent
to army camps for training - they are just people. You know, people
fumbling around, making mistakes, accidentally pissing other people off. We
all stumbled our way here I think, no one started editing perfectly or
never said a wrong thing or made a faux-pas - I made 4 today. Yes, some
people handle criticism better than others, but I can tell your from
witnessing it first-hand that being singled out by ~100 strangers is an
emotionally taxing experience. Or maybe the gender gap discussions have
sensitized me too much :P and I'm being biased.

Lastly, I'll ask again, what was the expectation here? "Yes, I took some
time out between clubbing baby seals, and kicking blind people, to take
away flags I don't understand, from strangers I don't know. You know,
because I'm evil like that" - nothing short of that would have gratified
the current quest. There are two possible reasons, either someone else on
staff asked or Ms. Young wasn't provided all the facts and didn't realize
the implications. Both involve implicating another staff member, the course
she took seems evident that it's not the road she wants to go down. While I
don't agree, given her position, I can empathize.


> [Note that I'm speaking generally -- I personally think Gayle can
> handle criticism and she seems very nice. She also probably had no
> idea this would create dramz. My comment is directed towards the
> general "omg think of the staff member!" response to criticism that is
> systemic in our movement.]


You've actually read my mail on those other lists, do you really think I'm
the one to say "omg think of the staff member!" ? I recall arguing the
opposite on at least 3 very visible occasions.

On the other hand, I had deja vu reading Philippe's email. Between the two,
I think Gayle is far more pensive than Philippe's appears to be. It's
almost combative. He agrees that he advised her wrong, and then spends the
latter half chastising the tone on IRC and emails, and ends with a familiar
sign-off. I vehemently believe he had more to do with this than just being
the trigger-man. Considering how long he's known Mz, the amount of
interactions they've had, even the times Mz has helped Philippe. He knew
the reaction, perhaps why this was done first without warning in this way.
I would point out "seven years ago the WMF was paralyzed from lack of
strategy and direction" - and say I can really make an argument that it's
actually the other way round. The strategy then was to grow. Now it's
running in every direction and switching mid-stream - you can start from
global development, to the education program and find a lot in between.

-Theo
_______________________________________________
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)

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
I can sympathize with the issue, namely, that it would be nice if only
Foundation employees could be allowed admin access on their own wiki.
I recall a similar issue (which was not so widely blown up) for our
WMNL board wiki in the Netherlands (and yes Phoebe, that is a very
boring wiki). I find it interesting to read Gayle's reaction, but I
don't think she should have apologized.

The way the community interacts with newbies is unforgiveable, period.
This is a perfect example of the reason that many women will go away
after their first few edits, or they grow some sort of special magic
Wikipedia filter. Even if she was just the messenger and it was
Philippe's idea, as far as the reactions to Gayle go, I agree with
Philippe's "it's often damn hard to wade into these waters...", but I
would rather conclude with "Staff members are Wikipedians too."

And don't get me started on the concept of "higher standards"!!

2013/5/13, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>:

> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Casey Brown, 13/05/2013 07:05:
>>
>>> [...] [Note that I'm speaking generally -- I personally think Gayle can
>>>
>>> handle criticism and she seems very nice. She also probably had no
>>> idea this would create dramz. My comment is directed towards the
>>> general "omg think of the staff member!" response to criticism that is
>>> systemic in our movement.]
>>>
>>
>> Still, "omg think of the staff member!" seems to be the point Gayle and
>> Philippe make on this thread. If history teaches something, I guess the
>> board will soon approve a resolution to request the development of a
>> Personal Communitymember Filter to AT LAST hide all that offensive content
>> in our community. MediaWiki-mailman integration offers some challenges,
>> but
>> our commitment to openness will swiftly help, shutting down more mailing
>> lists in favour of wiki discussions.
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>
> Au contraire, I feel we should all earn some kind of barnstar just for
> participating in this discussion/situation. You know, it's kind of the
> ultimate Wikimedian tempest: arguing over who gets to add users and delete
> pages on what is quite possibly the world's most boring wiki[1]...
>
> It's also a quintessentially Wikimedian debate because there's all this
> subtext -- assumed but not articulated -- that isn't minor at all: about
> community ownership versus corporate control, about who has authority to
> make decisions in what sphere, about the role volunteers play in the
> organization, over what personal reputation means on the projects, over
> what admin rights mean, what kind of work environment the staff have, etc..
> I'm gonna take a stab in the dark here and guess that Gayle wasn't
> intending to start a debate on all these big important topics, or even
> perhaps to comment on them at all. I'm also gonna say from experience that
> it's often damn hard to wade into these waters and take an action *without*
> touching off a debate on all these subjects. As someone said upthread, the
> golden rule does help, as does practice working with the wiki way, and
> knowing all the personal ins and outs of Wikimedia and our arcane culture.
> But *even that* doesn't always save someone from making an unpopular
> decision, or from screwing up or not thinking through all the ways they
> might be wading into a minefield -- and that goes for all of us, staff,
> board, & community alike. Hey, ask me how I know.
>
> Sheesh, being part of the world's biggest collaborative project is hard
> sometimes.
>
> -- phoebe
>
>
> 1. I exempt, of course, the internal wiki at my workplace, which has won
> the crown many years running.
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette-3
Lets get a few things in perspective:
1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/whatever beyond what
might be considered a startle reaction to an apparent attack without
warning?
2 How many people constitute this community
Divide answer 1 by answer 2

Consider how much of the response was a snowball effect of frustration due
to a distinct shortage of explanation and direct answers to what might be
considered reasonable questions.

And yes, "Welcome to Wikipedia "

Cheers,
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Beaudette" <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)


> So, I took Florence's excellent advice and went for a walk (beautiful day
> in SF, by the way - absolutely perfect).
>
> And I reflected on what I've seen since "flipping the switch" on things
> last Friday.  Here's where I stand, and I haven't discussed this with
> anyone else at WMF, including Gayle.
>
> At the expense of sounding trite, I think I can safely say "Mistakes were
> made."  Gayle was trying to solve a real problem, and she got a lot of
> advice on how to do that.  But the principle role of a staff member in a
> role such as mine is "to advise", I think, and I'm afraid that I didn't
> offer good advice in this case.  I don't think I gave bad advice - rather,
> I didn't give as good of advice as I could have.  What our leadership
> should be able to expect from staff is that we look at things from a
> different perspective, and I think I failed to get as far out of my own
> head and into other peoples' to offer that varying perspective.  So when I
> say that mistakes were made, I include my role in that, through commission
> or omission, and I sincerely apologize for that.
>
> With that said: I'm afraid we're headed toward a precipice.  What I'm
> seeing scares me.  I see less and less good faith being offered toward the
> WMF.  One of the arguments that doesn't work for me is "seven years ago
> the
> WMF didn't make these mistakes" - because seven years ago the WMF was
> paralyzed from lack of strategy and direction.  All of that has changed
> and
> the WMF is out and aggressively trying things to arrest the editor decline
> and improve the user experience.  And yet, when our talented engineers try
> a data-driven tactic for something that needs to change, they're lambasted
> for forgetting the existing community.  And yet everyone here knows that
> if
> we don't change some things, things will get very very ugly, very very
> quickly.
>
> One of the things that must continue to change is the tone on the wikis,
> and the tone (in IRC and by email) between staff and volunteers.  I know
> that volunteers are individual and - in addition to several frankly
> abusive
> emails I've received this weekend, I've also received absolutely wonderful
> support from volunteers who reached out to make me smile, laugh, or just
> remind me why I love this community.  But the abusive ones absolutely
> *must*stop.  I have never once, in my entire time at WMF, sent an
> email that
> approaches the level of things that I see WMF staff subjected to
> routinely,
> and I have to counsel over and over that "it's okay, they don't speak for
> the community", but I see the community tacitly support that behavior (or
> fail to condemn it), and it's hard to say with a straight face that the
> people sending abusive mail or making abusive statements in IRC don't
> speak
> for the community.
>
> So my challenge and my promise:  I promise to reflect on the experiences
> of
> this weekend and figure out how I could have offered Gayle better advice,
> given the circumstances, and given the fact that there are some things
> that
> are not public about the decision, and unfortunately they can't be.  My
> challenge to the community:  think about the tone of what you see
> happening
> around you.  And if you wouldn't want to see your grandmother asked a
> question like that, and if it would make you feel defensive to see her
> questioned in that tone, then step in and make it clear that the tone is
> unacceptable.  Staff members are people too.  How about finding one that
> has done something you appreciate (come on, there must be ONE) and tell
> them so?  You'd be shocked how much gratitude they'll feel, because you
> may
> be the first community member EVER to tell them that.
>
> Best,
> pb
>
>
>
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> [hidden email]
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Russavia
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Gayle Karen Young <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > This definitely feels like a bit of trial by fire.
>>
>> True dat. Now that you have received your initiation, there's nothing
>> left to say but WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)

James Alexander-3
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Lets get a few things in perspective:
> 1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/whatever beyond
> what might be considered a startle reaction to an apparent attack without
> warning?
> 2 How many people constitute this community
> Divide answer 1 by answer 2
>
> Consider how much of the response was a snowball effect of frustration due
> to a distinct shortage of explanation and direct answers to what might be
> considered reasonable questions.
>
> And yes, "Welcome to Wikipedia "
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>

2 is an unreasonable number to divide by when it's such a small cross
section of the actual community on these lists.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12345678