Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues ... If this were true, then Wil could have taken part in discussion on Wikipediocracy with a throw-away anonymous account to educate himself on the culture there. I am sure that Wil and Lila know how to keep an internet account anonymous, or they can ask someone on their personal network who does know. To parody a little, but not much, Hello, I'm the partner of the new CEO of the WMF and I would like to ask you about what you think of the WMF projects... Oh, please pretend that I have nothing to do with the CEO of the WMF. No, that just does not add up. As someone partial, due to the actions of some participants of 'that website' to deride my life as a gay man, my view is that Lila is actively losing good faith, before she has managed to deliver anything for our movement, by not having a word with her partner to stop him playing silly and potentially destructive games using her name as if he were the charitable First husband playing ambassador. Wil has a right to free speech (in the UK we have similar law, it amounts to meh, you are free to make an arse out yourself). This ensures his right to be free to irretrievably cock up Lila's reputation in the eyes of the Wikimedia community's most active and productive volunteers. If Lila is going to be good at managing politics within our movement, now would be an excellent time to start demonstrating it, rather than pretending she does not know about the games Wil is playing within the Wikimedia movement that she is being handsomely paid to support. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten under his skin... What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they fire him?? Some job they'd be walking into! Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years' experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the grease the squeakiest wheel approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple years. Pete On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has held one of the most public position of authority on the English Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some day). Thanks. I appreciate any advice. Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects. On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the movement's gaffes. I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd like to find out as much as I can about the movement. This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to keep an ear to the ground as it were. The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their investigations is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in the projects. Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution, but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there, too, for the reasons you've mentioned above. (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of private boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on those sites). Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the members further questions about potential threats to my family once Lila's position was announced. This particular board was particularly productive. The people on that board were kind and helpful, although I don't know what goes on in the other boards. I have never tried to enter the other forums, but I'm assuming I wouldn't be allowed. Have you ever been on those boards? The net result is that everything on those sites is tainted with bile and venom; and every opportunity to hurt is exploited
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24/05/2014 03:31, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: *On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the movement's gaffes. Thanks :) The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, revenge or simple outright malice. (1) This point has already been made, but it bears repeating. If the criticism is valid, as you seem to agree, why does the *motive* matter? (2) How do you know what the motives are? Are you a psychologist or a criminologist? My experience of WO is that many of the participants are driven by a sense of injustice at perceived mistreatment or unfairness on Wikipedia. That's just a speculation of course. It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the malcontent. This is the case with most protest movements. If enough people think something is going wrong, and if they see no way of fixing things through 'official channels', then they will find some other place to rally. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their investigations is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. When the problem involves conflict of interest, i.e. when someone is using an anonymous account on Wikipedia to promote some agenda or interest, it is obviously very difficult to avoid revealing identity or interest - particularly when it involves people massaging articles about themselves. When WO does this in the published articles it makes every effort to address the principle involved, rather than the person. E ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] FDC Advisory Group
Just joined this list and not sure my 1st message got through This is to let everybody know that the Fund Dissemination Committee Advisory Group aka the FDC AG will be meeting Sunday thru Monday The purpose is to review the set up and operations of the Funds Dissemination Committee and give a recommendation on this to the Executive Director (as mandated by the resolution creating the FDC) see our page on meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Meeting_3#Agenda and feel free to send info, opinions etc. to that talk page. If all the similar abbreviations above confuse you, the idea is this: we'd like to know what you think about the FDC, the committee set up by the board 2 years ago to recommend sending funds to chapters and groups. And what should be the future of that committee. The second committee (the FDC AG) will discuss your ideas and make a recommendation to the ED. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten under his skin... Hi Pete. What are you referring to here? Thanks. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF. If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology. Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's a person like the rest of us and she has feelings. Best. ,Wil On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten under his skin... What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they fire him?? Some job they'd be walking into! Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years' experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the grease the squeakiest wheel approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple years. Pete On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has held one of the most public position of authority on the English Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some day). Thanks. I appreciate any advice. Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects. On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the movement's gaffes. I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd like to find out as much as I can about the movement. This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to keep an ear to the ground as it were. The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation. The vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite, revenge or simple outright malice. It is no coincidence that the more prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the malcontent. The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in their investigations is because they are driven by an obsessive need to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries. Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in the projects. Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution, but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there, too, for the reasons you've mentioned above. (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of private boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on those sites). Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very graciously set up a temporary private forum for me to ask some of the members further questions about potential threats to my family once Lila's
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: ... I just ask for a chance to show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me that chance? ... Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons, and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying to help achieve the aims of our projects. At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila were hoping for. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I just ask for a chance to show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me that chance? ... Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons, and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying to help achieve the aims of our projects. OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with you if I do audio instead of photos or videos? At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila were hoping for. FWIW, her title is Executive Director, not CEO. Honestly, I'm less worried about the impression I'm giving you than your getting to know the real me. I'm very much looking forward to that. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've seen of her in public. (: However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that you're going to create drama with what you're doing here, and make Lila's and WMF's jobs more complicated. I am assuming good faith that you are well-intentioned, but I am worried, not so much for your sake but for the community's, Lila's, and WMF's. I would like to show you some options for places where the style of conversation you are using would be a better fit, where you can ask questions and have discussions, and which are less politically sensitive than this list is. Of course you are welcome on this list if you have cross-wiki suggestions or can't get questions answered elsewhere, and I respect your right to free speech, but I would ask you to consider these suggestions. On English Wikipedia, you will find friendly and helpful people at our Teahouse. [1] For questions and realtime help you can also visit #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC. If you want to get to know Wikipedians, I suggest that you join local volunteer meetups such Wiknic if there is one in your area. In those circumstances most people are happy to socialize. [2] If you are able to attend WikiConference USA in New York, I think you would enjoy it. [3] If you want to have electronic conversations that are more chatty and less formal than the discussions on this list, I suggest IRC. #wikipedia-en is a high profile channel and many of the questions that you asked here could be discussed in there. And as I said above, for realtime help you can visit #wikipedia-en-help. However, I ask as a personal favor that you don't have conversations in #wikimedia-office which is the main WMF channel. I can't stop you from talking there any more than I can take away your free speech rights, but I think any communications in there from you would create more complications. I feel it's ok for you or any Wikipedian in good standing to talk on WO if they want, but engaging in semi-official diplomacy is a very different matter, if that's what you're doing (I haven't checked your edits and I don't want to). There may come a time when you have the community's trust and can act in high-profile ways with the support of the community, but at the moment the discussion on this email list tells me that your actions are creating complications to the start of Lila's tenure in ways that have me worried. To use an analogy, imagine Michelle Obama saying in public that her personal opinion is that Barack Obama should have diplomatic talks with insert hostile country here or revoke insert executive order here, or that she personally has been conducting outreach to insert hostile country here without going through the State Department. That would create complications for Barack Obama and lots of other people, even though Michelle has a right to communicate her views. I am available to answer questions if you have any for me. You can ask on my Meta talk page, on my English Wikipedia talk page, through email, or set up a time to meet me on IRC or Skype. I'm sure other participants in this discussion would also be willing to talk with you in places other than this list. If I have misunderstood your position please correct me. I appreciate your interest in Wikipedia and I hope you will be a net positive to the community. (: Pine [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wicnik [3] http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Main_Page ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Look, we have quite enough non-constructive passive-aggressive stuff going on here without it being added to with thinly veiled threats like this. Please stop. I think the main issue that people have here is that Sue was very private about her private life, at least in public. Now we have the polar opposite of the ED's significant other showing up and, in the eyes of some, 'consorting with the enemy'. This is a pretty opinionated community and this sort of thing will raise eyebrows. Quite a lot of regulars on this list have a troubled and lengthy history with some of the WO regulars, and so you're probably going to get more criticism than plaudits for publicly engaging with them, regardless of how good your intentions are. To be honest, more than Wil's hanging out with Greg Kohs and the like, I'm a little more disappointed that there hasn't been much interaction as far as I can see between Lila and the rank and file volunteers. The relationship between volunteers and Sue was stretched at times, and it hurt the movement, so I hope that Lila is just testing the waters before rolling up her sleeves and jumping into the sharkpool to meet us :-) Cheers, Craig On 24 May 2014 17:24, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF. If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology. Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's a person like the rest of us and she has feelings. Best. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with you if I do audio instead of photos or videos? Certainly, Commons is massively under-represented with audio files. Check out my audio projects at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sound_files_uploaded_by_F%C3%A6 as a comparison. For Commons issues I suggest first sounding them out with regular contributors on the Commons Village pump before jumping to wider forums such as this email list. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24 May 2014 08:24, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF. If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology. Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's a person like the rest of us and she has feelings. Best. ,Wil Hey what happened to disclaiming any relevant link between the two of you? Not exactly consistent with you canvasing for an apology on her behalf. Of course it is somewhat alarming that you are suggesting that our new ED can't handle robust criticism but I personally prefer to trust the judgment of the board and other involved parties. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] message vs. messenger (was Re: Participating on Wikipediocracy)
Wil Sinclair wrote: I personally care more about the message than the messenger If only more people thought that way! Sometimes I feel like I have to explain things to people like they were five because I confused them with technical topics several years ago. People tell me to shut up all the time, and often for the flimsiest of reasons. Like on the advocacy_advisors list it turns out I was moderated because I was supposedly off topic, but the moderator who took that unilateral action won't tell me which posts were off topic or how to appeal, and supposedly all of my posts there are going to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for topicality and those deemed topical will be allowed. Even though both of those held for moderation since this happened haven't been posted, and there have been no reasons offered as to why they were not on topic. Back before 2007, it seemed like there was going to be a never-ending growth of editors, but when that turned into a slow decline, none of the Foundation's strategic policy objectives changed. So now we are still trying like mad to get the rights to copy marginally free works that very few people have any interest in, but not lifting a finger to help the typical potential editor, for whom life just keeps getting worse in the current political climate. The Foundation has a lot of resources and a lot of smart people, and I won't re-hash the list of my suggestions now, but soon my associates and I will be able to use the algorithms in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0500v1.pdf to perform an independent and transparent community support survey of updated strategic objectives in support of community health. Maybe the German Chapter's apparent refocus on supporting editors will help. How about a race: Foundation staff verses community volunteers, to be the first to perform a comprehensive editor support strategy survey? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Hey what happened to disclaiming any relevant link between the two of you? Not exactly consistent with you canvasing for an apology on her behalf. Of course it is somewhat alarming that you are suggesting that our new ED can't handle robust criticism but I personally prefer to trust the judgment of the board and other involved parties. I would say this if it were about anyone in the community. Talking in this way behind one's back is disrespectful, and whether we're ED of the WMF or a passing casual WP surfer, everyone in our community deserves respect. I guess we'll all see how she handles criticism soon enough. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Craig, I was trying to be kind. If you consider that a threat, then I apologize to you, Pete, and the whole list. I think at this point words have served us about as well as they ever will. Some of you don't like the fact that I've participated on Wikipediocracy. Others are uncomfortable because the incoming ED has a partner who is active in the community, and that is a new thing. Still others would like to see less of me and more of Lila. All reasonable concerns. I suggest we set the words aside for the time being and start letting our actions speak for themselves. Best. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: ... Others are uncomfortable because the incoming ED has a partner who is active in the community, and that is a new thing. No, churning politics off-wiki and then bringing issues raised off-wiki on-wiki, is not being active in the community, presuming you mean the community who actually enjoy contributing to Wikimedia projects. I suggest we set the words aside for the time being and start letting our actions speak for themselves. Yes, good strategy, let's do it. Apart from a few minutes responding on this email thread, yesterday I sorted out some missing very large images of 19th C. cartoons[1] which have been part of a pattern of problematic tiffs under discussion on bugzilla, and today I have been checking up on some tricky conflicting sources for the Warren Cup article in the hope to eventually get it to Good Article status regardless of it including a depiction of anal sex.[2] These are the sort of content based mildly contentious, but positive, action that everyone likes to see. I'll get on with them. Links 1. http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/quick_intersection.php?lang=commonsproject=wikimediacats=British+Cartoon+Prints+Collection%0D%0AGWToolset+Batch+Uploadns=6depth=12max=3start=0format=htmlredirects=callback= 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Cup Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose. [4] * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking organization. * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if the recommendations are published before the deadline for the recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''. * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on the FDC recommendations, i.e. by end-of-day UTC '''1 July 2014'''. * Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing an appeal will be put on hold until the appeal is resolved. * If the WMF Board's consideration of the appeal results in an amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation. * The Ombudsperson, as well as members of the WMF Board other than the Board representatives, may participate in the investigation if approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process (formerly called appeals): * A complaint about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time during a particular round of the FDC process (e.g. in this instance, from start '''1 April 2014'''). * The complaint should be submitted on wiki, through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose [5] * The ombudsperson will receive and publicly document the complaint, and investigate the complaint, as needed. On behalf of the FDC, pundit Dariusz Jemielniak (FDC Chair) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals [4]
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Hi Dariusz ( Everyone) On behalf of the Board of Trustees allow me to once again thank the FDC and involved WMF Staff members for all the work that has gone into this round. I am looking forward to discussing the future of the FDC with you and all the others in the coming days as we convene with the FDC Advisory Group. Also thanks to all those who have participated in the public discussions on the different proposals, it is what makes us truly unique as an organisation! Thank you, Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees On 24 May 2014, at 15:51, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose. [4] * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking organization. * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if the recommendations are published before the deadline for the recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''. * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on the FDC recommendations, i.e. by end-of-day UTC '''1 July 2014'''. * Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing an appeal will be put on hold until the appeal is resolved. * If the WMF Board's consideration of the appeal results in an amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation. * The Ombudsperson, as well as members of the WMF Board other than the Board representatives, may participate in the investigation if approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process (formerly called appeals): * A complaint about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time during a particular round of the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 8:51 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've seen of her in public. (: However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that you're going to create drama with what you're doing here, and make Lila's and WMF's jobs more complicated. I am assuming good faith that you are well-intentioned, but I am worried, not so much for your sake but for the community's, Lila's, and WMF's. I will just add a little to Pine's comments here. The way the Wikimedia movement has developed, we've ended up with some prominent fora that tend to be high-drama and low-effectiveness. Even this list has a fairly low signal-to-noise ratio most of the time, as in many threads the people with real insights into a situation tend not to post for one reason or another, while people with axes to grind do so far more. If you want to explore the Wikimedia movement then absolutely great, but there are better ways to do it! Pine's suggestions are a good start - also, there are various conferences and events, I think there's one in the USA coming up, then Wikimania in London in a few months. Also, just a word about free speech. If you or someone close to you is in a leadership position, then you have responsibilities - either to them, or to the organisation, or to both. I'm a bit concerned that if conversations like this one keep going, then when Lila comes out of watch and listen mode, the first thing she's going to hear from this list is a bunch of questions about you. I think one of the main learning points for the Foundation over the last few years is that there is only a certain amount of oxygen in the community for thought and discussion. If I were you I'd do Lila the favour of making sure that she can use as much of that oxygen as she wants, and limit the amount you're taking for yourself. Kind regards, and look forward to meeting you sometime, Chris I would like to show you some options for places where the style of conversation you are using would be a better fit, where you can ask questions and have discussions, and which are less politically sensitive than this list is. Of course you are welcome on this list if you have cross-wiki suggestions or can't get questions answered elsewhere, and I respect your right to free speech, but I would ask you to consider these suggestions. On English Wikipedia, you will find friendly and helpful people at our Teahouse. [1] For questions and realtime help you can also visit #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC. If you want to get to know Wikipedians, I suggest that you join local volunteer meetups such Wiknic if there is one in your area. In those circumstances most people are happy to socialize. [2] If you are able to attend WikiConference USA in New York, I think you would enjoy it. [3] If you want to have electronic conversations that are more chatty and less formal than the discussions on this list, I suggest IRC. #wikipedia-en is a high profile channel and many of the questions that you asked here could be discussed in there. And as I said above, for realtime help you can visit #wikipedia-en-help. However, I ask as a personal favor that you don't have conversations in #wikimedia-office which is the main WMF channel. I can't stop you from talking there any more than I can take away your free speech rights, but I think any communications in there from you would create more complications. I feel it's ok for you or any Wikipedian in good standing to talk on WO if they want, but engaging in semi-official diplomacy is a very different matter, if that's what you're doing (I haven't checked your edits and I don't want to). There may come a time when you have the community's trust and can act in high-profile ways with the support of the community, but at the moment the discussion on this email list tells me that your actions are creating complications to the start of Lila's tenure in ways that have me worried. To use an analogy, imagine Michelle Obama saying in public that her personal opinion is that Barack Obama should have diplomatic talks with insert hostile country here or revoke insert executive order here, or that she personally has been conducting outreach to insert hostile country here without going through the State Department. That would create complications for Barack Obama and lots of other people, even though Michelle has a right to communicate her views. I am available to answer questions if you have any for me. You can ask on my Meta talk page, on my English Wikipedia talk page, through email, or set up a time to meet me on IRC or Skype. I'm sure other participants in this discussion would also be willing to talk with you in places other than this list. If I have misunderstood your position please correct me. I appreciate your interest in Wikipedia and I hope you will be a net positive to the community.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Hello again, Wil. It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place to do so. But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to not answer: On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are? Because their priorities are out of whack. By their obsession over nits and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing... Over and before the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much more *important* things that need fixing that are plain for everyone to see but just don't happen to be usable as weapons against others. (Systemic bias, participation by women, the changing editor landscape, increasing PR manipulation... I could go on all day). Also, they harp repeatedly on the same points over and over that have been asked and answered by the community, the discussion of which has repeatedly shown to be both unproductive and cause for strife. Given that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable -- but that's not a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wants to be a productive participant in the movement. Case in point is their obsession with imagining that the project are replete with pedophiles and pedophile-enablers, focusing on what they hallucinate is a lack of diligence in handling the matter because we do so discretely. So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions about child protection rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else. Like it or not, you are the spouse of the most visible person of the movement and what you do will always be associated with what Lila does. Imagine a little what your reaction would be if the spouse of your local chief of police was publicly socializing with known gang members? Yes, you are your own person -- but you do not live in isolation and the motives of who you hang out with *does* matter. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 02:31:32 UTC 2014 the criticism there has led to exposing **serious problems that desperately needed fixing**, Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 15:00:31 UTC 2014 By their obsession over **nits** Which? increasing PR manipulation This has been a consistent focus for WO and its predecessor for several years. There is a whole sub-forum devoted to this problem. Given that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable Again, this is a claim about psychological states that you need to justify. you were simply aping one of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling You mean concerns about child protection? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 05/24/2014 11:13 AM, edward wrote: Also this complaint http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one. There are issues indeed about who is supposed to handle what aspect of the matter; with opinions diverging about respective roles of various participants. WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't even actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered anything significant on the matter. Of course, taking anything out of context can make any issue look disproportionally important or significant; not unlike how by selectively misquoting my previous email you made it seem like I was holding a position I was not in order to attack it. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote: You mean selectively quoting? I was not aware of misquoting you. I used your very words. Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then. I could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments is, necessarily, misquoting but this was a simple production error -- having both 'selectively quoting' and 'misquoting' in mind I ended up writing halfway between both. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Which bits did you feel were selective, i.e. which parts of your original meaning were changed by quoting sentence fragments? I mean you did actually say that the criticism on WO has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing. You then followed that up, and here I quote the whole sentence By their obsession over nits and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing. It's not clear whether you agree that WO criticism has uncovered some serious problems, in which case that's a good thing, regardless of motivation, or whether the problems aren't serious, as is implied by your term 'nits' (small creatures that are trivial in the grand scheme of things). In the same post you then refer to the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much more *important* things that need fixing, which implies the 'serious problems that desperately needed fixing' are not so serious. I also noted that one of the 'more important' things you refer to was also a strong focus for WO, namely the gaming by paid editors and suchlike, i.e. you suggested that WO isn't focused on such things, whereas in fact they are. To my mind, conflict of interest (financial, agenda-driven, nationalistic and, yes, editing by pedophiles), is the most serious problem facing the project. On 24/05/2014 16:30, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote: You mean selectively quoting? I was not aware of misquoting you. I used your very words. Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then. I could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments is, necessarily, misquoting but this was a simple production error -- having both 'selectively quoting' and 'misquoting' in mind I ended up writing halfway between both. -- Mar ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Marc, I am sure you are aware of the discussion here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection Those concerns were raised not by banned trolls, but by members of the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, and other users with advanced permissions. They were raised over a year ago, and as far as I am aware, the situation is unchanged. You said earlier, In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach 'mainstream' venues soon enough if it was legitimate. In a sense you're right: this was brought up by mainstream players, in a mainstream locale: Sue's talk page. However, the fact of the matter is that *nothing has been done to address the concern*. You say, WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't even actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered anything significant on the matter. You may remember the case on Commons of Beta-M, a man who newspapers reported was jailed in the US for distribution of child pornography and deported, and who subsequently took on a key role as a curator of adult content on Commons. He also left messages on dozens of Commons user talk pages inviting them to send him nude pictures of themselves for use on his private website. He was eventually removed from Wikimedia projects by WMF office action – one of very few of this kind ever taken – against the will of the Commons community. The sole reason for the office action was that the matter of his prior conviction was brought up by WR/WO critics. I have no doubt that he would have carried on much as before otherwise. Another self-described pedophile recently offered nude pictures of his wife to Commons, as discussed on this mailing list a few days ago. At one point, he was trying to re-write the child protection policy on Meta, a fact which was brought up on Geoff Brigham's user talk page on Meta. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Leucosticte He is still free to contribute to Wikimedia projects, despite a number of people now having raised his contributions as problematic. The recent terms-of-use change proposal to address paid editing came in the wake of reporting on Wiki-PR's sockpuppet army by the Daily Dot. The situation had been festering on-wiki for months. One longstanding bureaucrat resigned over it. Qworty contributed for over half a decade. What complaints there were about him over the years never led to action, until a journalist wrote an exposé of him. I do not see self-regulation working effectively. Sometimes, outside criticism is vital, as it is for *any organisation in society*. In that sense, I see our effort as making a productive contribution. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: Hello again, Wil. It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place to do so. But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to not answer: On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: If they are exposing serious problems that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their motives are? Because their priorities are out of whack. By their obsession over nits and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing... Over and before the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much more *important* things that need fixing that are plain for everyone to see but just don't happen to be usable as weapons against others. (Systemic bias, participation by women, the changing editor landscape, increasing PR manipulation... I could go on all day). Also, they harp repeatedly on the same points over and over that have been asked and answered by the community, the discussion of which has repeatedly shown to be both unproductive and cause for strife. Given that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable -- but that's not a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wants to be a productive participant in the movement. Case in point is their obsession with imagining that the project are replete with pedophiles and pedophile-enablers, focusing on what they hallucinate is a lack of diligence in handling the matter because we do so discretely. So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions about child protection rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else. Like it or not, you are the spouse of the most visible person of the movement and what you do will always be associated with what Lila does. Imagine a little what your reaction would be if the spouse of your local chief of police was publicly socializing with known gang members? Yes, you are your own person -- but you do not
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
+1 I want to join Jat-Bart and thanks the FDC for the great work they did again. I'm also happy to see improvement in the process and to see that this round the FDC published more detailed feedback of their recommendations. I found their feedback of the WMF proposal as a very mature and profound, and highlight some of us a very interesting issues to look for, and I know that wasn't been so easy to do so. I also want to congratulate WMFR for being the first chapter over the lasts 2 rounds to be recommended to be fully funded, although they requested 50% higher allocation from the last year allocation. WMFR proposal is indeed very professional and interesting one which posed a high bar for everyone on the next rounds. Well done WMFR! Itzik WMIL On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Dariusz ( Everyone) On behalf of the Board of Trustees allow me to once again thank the FDC and involved WMF Staff members for all the work that has gone into this round. I am looking forward to discussing the future of the FDC with you and all the others in the coming days as we convene with the FDC Advisory Group. Also thanks to all those who have participated in the public discussions on the different proposals, it is what makes us truly unique as an organisation! Thank you, Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees On 24 May 2014, at 15:51, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose. [4] * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking organization. * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if the recommendations are published before the deadline for the recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''. * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions about child protection rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else. I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues that affect my own children. Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about what may or may not be going on in each other's heads. Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more on what's being said rather than who is saying it. Thanks. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we hope to make your work easier as well. Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations. Lila On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Dariusz and FDC, Thank you for this fine recommendation. I just read through it for the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying organizations, and to how we plan for the future. I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France proposal. And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly. The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough. (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report next time) A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped in with administration. The last point is indicative of a larger blind spot, I think. I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are well considered. Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the future... Congratulations on this work. And good luck to those FDC advisors meeting over the coming days. Sam. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose. [4] * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking organization. * Formal appeals must be filed within seven
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I haven't been participating. At times I've gained useful insights and information from things posted on those sites. In particular, they have been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention to the well-being of BLP subjects. To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some things that take place on those sites. A few contributors there have a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their illogical extremes. The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it. The tone of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.) There is a troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued). The wholesale publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point. As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on particular individuals. I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila. I do suggest to Wil that a critic site should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply accepted. But I suspect that Wil understands that already. Newyorkbrad On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions about child protection rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else. I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues that affect my own children. Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about what may or may not be going on in each other's heads. Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more on what's being said rather than who is saying it. Thanks. ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila. But is there anybody who has actually expressed that view? Pete ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On 24 May 2014 22:21, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila. But is there anybody who has actually expressed that view? I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers, trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way. en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and having to resign on his first day. (Great going, guys - that's definitely how to maintain that all-important decorum) The site exists to further bitterness and wikispamming (it's not clear which comes first; possibly both equally) and every time I'm foolish enough to look at it I feel stupider afterwards. Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your question what's going on? in a sentence (or a paragraph or an essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias for fun as a kid. I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia. Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow humans are, really. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers, trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way. en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and having to resign on his first day. This they're all banned trolls talk is getting really old, David. That particular troll (User:28bytes) is an active administrator and bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia today. WO was unaware of his on-wiki identity, and that he was running for ArbCom. We found out after he won the ArbCom election – and if we hadn't, you wouldn't have. And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That in itself is food for thought. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Hello everyone, I thank you all for your encouraging comments on behalf of the FDC. We will be very happy to see our recommendations materialise for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement as a whole. We are grateful to everyone who has been a part of this process so far. Regards Ali Haidar Khan On May 24, 2014 9:06 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we hope to make your work easier as well. Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations. Lila On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Dariusz and FDC, Thank you for this fine recommendation. I just read through it for the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying organizations, and to how we plan for the future. I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France proposal. And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly. The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough. (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report next time) A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped in with administration. The last point is indicative of a larger blind spot, I think. I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are well considered. Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the future... Congratulations on this work. And good luck to those FDC advisors meeting over the coming days. Sam. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion):
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Andreas And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That in itself is food for thought. And therein lies the problem. In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO forums on an issue in which I wasn't involved, and then proceded to close an AfD as if he was an uninvolved admin/bureaucrat. 28bytes is as a dishonest person who you will ever come across, and he outed himself only after seeing the secret subforum where he saw he was going to be outed by you guys. And you want to hold him as an example of a shining example of WO membership, seriously? Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Andreas And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That in itself is food for thought. And therein lies the problem. In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO forums on an issue in which I wasn't involved, and then proceded to close an AfD as if he was an uninvolved admin/bureaucrat. 28bytes is as a dishonest person who you will ever come across, and he outed himself only after seeing the secret subforum where he saw he was going to be outed by you guys. And you want to hold him as an example of a shining example of WO membership, seriously? Personally, I'd much rather any admins, bureaucrats and checkusers who have active accounts on WO would be open about their WP user names. This doesn't change the fact, does it, that David's description of 28bytes as a troll, and presumably one of the justifiably-banned users, was ludicrously at variance with the facts. 28bytes is trusted with more permissions on the English Wikipedia than David is. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I don't know about any specific incidents Newyorkbrad has referred to below, but I generally agree with his characterization of the site. I've told them exactly what I think of the nature of some discourse there when I started this thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13t=4527. I recommend that anyone who chooses to participate on Wikipediocracy keep this in mind. It is a site that was set up solely to criticize Wikipedia and (in my opinion, unfortunately) some members of its community. It is not the world's foremost reference site and, not surprisingly, has very different policies. I don't see why it should be held to the same standards as Wikipedia, any more than a site like Encyclopedia Dramatica should. Personally, I choose to ignore the personal stuff and look for secondary sources on the issues I care about. Fortunately, they provide many very ligit links (most of them to WP, as I have mentioned) to back up their arguments. This discussion begs the question: if there's a lot on Wikipediocracy that they find unpleasant or offensive, why are so many contributors, admins, and upstanding members of the WP community going there to discuss issues instead of talking through them in places like this forum? ,Wil On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I haven't been participating. At times I've gained useful insights and information from things posted on those sites. In particular, they have been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention to the well-being of BLP subjects. To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some things that take place on those sites. A few contributors there have a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their illogical extremes. The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it. The tone of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.) There is a troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued). The wholesale publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point. As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on particular individuals. I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila. I do suggest to Wil that a critic site should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply accepted. But I suspect that Wil understands that already. Newyorkbrad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your question what's going on? in a sentence (or a paragraph or an essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias for fun as a kid. I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia. Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow humans are, really. Thanks, David, and I agree 100% that there's a lot that I can only learn by participating. That's one reason I'm here. :) I've also been uploading sound loops to Commons, and I'm working on a few new articles on various pet interests of mine. I think the one thing left that Fae suggested I do is edit a BLP, IIRC. I know that there has been some discussion about how to handle BLP's here and on WO. These particular issues seem much harder to grok without some experience, so I think Fae was on-point when he suggested I just dive right in. I've also learned a lot from Wikipediocracy, but YMMV. :) ,Wil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
