Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments
No employee should be made to receive that sort of harassment in the course of their job, no matter how much you disagree with them. How did it come to be part of Erik's job to create superprotect and attempt to force the community to accept it? As the WMF is defined in its mission statement, its purpose is to empower and enable the community to create the projects. Somehow disabling the community came to be seen as legitimate. Erik was, we suspect, highly involved in that, but really this is between Erik and his management. The wiki communities often harass unpopular messengers. This isn't just about Erik, it's about how wikis function, and unless the WMF manages to facilitate clearer and more efficient and more reliable community process, it's very likely to stay that way, because these kinds of community characteristics are self-reinforcing, since anything else is driven away. Solutions are prohibited, crushed immediately. The real issue in this affair, as many have noted, was not MediaViewer, it was about power and control, which are survival issues, instinctive for human beings. Anyone who was surprised by the intensity of the response doesn't know human beings. Not surprising, I suppose, for software people. But shocking for the WMF as a whole, so I'm hoping that there is some real soul-searching in the WMF offices. This was *entirely predictable.* Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now. From: Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments I think you've hit the nail on the head here. It's not about MediaViewer at all, it's about two things: #1: The frustration of some volunteers that they feel their views are not being adequately considered in major deployments of new software. #2: A lack of confidence and faith in the WMF Engineering team to deliver quality software. The second is the more dangerous one at this point. After the catastrophic aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that should have been picked up in even a cursory unit testing scheme or regression testing scheme prior to being deployed to a productive environment, there's not a good deal of faith left. The technical problems with MediaViewer were not as serious, but since a significant portion of the power user base was expecting a failure, they jumped on the flaws that it did have, and here we are. To be honest, if Erik were to turn water into wine at this point, people would still complain, and loudly, that he had provided them with red when they wanted white. I'm not sure that the solutions that have been offered; a new deployment process, or a tech council, are going to be sufficient to correct the real problem, which at this point is largely one of perception. Similarly, I don't think that the WMF adopting a complete hands-off approach as some seem to be demanding is going to lead to anything other than stagnation as individual communities squabble indecisively over what changes should be made. I do know that if it's not fixed, that pretty much every major deployment of new features is going to follow this same pattern, which is obviously highly undesirable. What I'd suggest is that we leave the emotional hostility at the door and try to be reasonable. Neither side is going to get exactly what they want, and that is to be expected. To be honest, some of the invective that has been directed at Foundation staff has been completely over the top; phrases like Taliban diplomacy or honest-to-god comparisons to the Nazis don't move us towards a solution or make one seem like someone that can be intelligently reasoned with, they only harden feelings on both sides and make a suitable arrangement being found less likely. No employee should be made to receive that sort of harassment in the course of their job, no matter how much you disagree with them. Cheers, Craig Franklin ___ 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] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments
Yes, it is emotions that speak, though emotions are often concealed beneath arguments. Basic human psychology. Any attempt to ascribe this affair to sour grapes from a disgruntled software developer is looking at a bush in the forest and not the massive collection of trees. No, it's about basic survival issues, it's called avoiding domination, a nearly universal trait that appears to be instinctive. There are *also* rational issues, but it was not reason that led the WMF to, in a rush, create and impose superprotect, and it was not reason that led to all the extreme comments from the community. We don't expect the community to be reasonable, as to every comment, but we do have higher expectations of people employed to serve us. It is likely, to me, that the root problem here was a new ED, who believed that her mission was to create a better experience for *readers*, and, my guess, she was encouraged to believe that by some of the Staff. And, of course, as a skilled manager from software companies, she would support and rely on the Staff for advice. However, there is a higher master, always, the customers. Those who actually pay the bills. Who are they? Well, we could talk about the donors, but there is a much larger contributor to the WMF, and it contributes labor, not money. That labor makes the projects possible. Some thought that the superprotect decision was a deliberate attempt to shove the community away, to move toward bot maintenance, to kick the experienced users out the door. I don't think so. I think it was simply inept, though an inept decision that might be expected from an *experienced software company manager.* Who was not informed that the community is the actual customer, not the readers. Who, I assume, can learn. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now. From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments Hoi, The argument is not at all about the MediaViewer. It is only the latest flash point. Consequently the notion of how hard it is to set a default on or off is not relevant really. When you read the Wikipedia Signpost you read about one of the major German players and it is found necessary to mention that his tools environment was ended and it became WMF labs. For me it gives the impression of sour grapes and a sense of failure because volunteers do not decide the agenda and feel angry/frustrated about that. Consequently my conclusion that it is not about the MediaViewer at all. The next thing that comes along will be the next flash point. This is because it is emotions that speak and not arguments. Thanks, GerardM On 1 September 2014 08:11, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 31, 2014 11:46 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer, Superprotect and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for the projects. Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves is disheartening. Personally, I would like to see us building on each other's work instead of feuding, and I'm getting MediaViewer issue fatigue. WMF's principal argument against letting projects make local decisions about configurations of MediaViewer seems to be that having a multitude of site configurations is impractical for site maintainability and development of new features. The Technical Committee would be in a good position to make global decisions on a consensus basis. Pine I've heard the argument that it is difficult to maintain and develop for having different default states of this setting across different projects, and frankly, I'm not buying it, unless the setting is intended to be removed completely. Could someone explain to me how having a different default state for the setting has much, or any, impact? - Martijn ___ 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
Whoever believes that an administration of a crowdsourcing website can do whatever they want just because they are running the website should recollect what recently happened to Internet Brands and Wikitravel. Popcorn, anyone? Wikipedia is not an organization, and the WMF does not administer the Wikipedias. It owns them, which gives the WMF the *legal right* to administer. It's quite obvious that, as the wikis have been operating, for the WMF to take over administration would require major changes. But it would not be impossible, and only a narrow imagination would conclude so. This issue of superprotect and how it was used raises issues of power and control. It seems to be assumed in these discussions that this is a deliberate assertion of power, we are in charge and you are not, and in a sense, it obviously is. However, is that the intention? Why are WMF employees confronting the community at this time and in this way and over a relatively small issue, and without a clear policy statement from the Board? The WMF has been, apparently, silent so far, which could mean that the Board and Executive Director have no plan, that they are trying to figure out what to do. This would be completely unsurprising. There are now editors suggesting a strike. That would be the community -- or a segment of the community -- attempting to force the WMF to submit to their way. And the superprotect flap was the WMF attempting to force the community to submit to their way. That tends to be where we go first when we are sure we are right, and others are wrong. And if it goes this way, everyone loses, very likely. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights is the usual wiki train wreck, which is what happens when raw, unripe proposals are made. But the WMF is not like the community, it is possible for it to come up with reflected, deliberated response. That, indeed, is why they have the money and the control. I recommend no rush. Do this right. That RfC is generating a lot of comment. Someone can and should refactor it to summarize the arguments, to create a true consensus document, I've been calling it. But whether or not anyone will find the time to do it, I don't know. It's a lot of work. Still, I'd think that the WMF would be noticing that it touched a live wire. So now what? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax I'm so excited I can't wait for Now. ___ 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] Community liaison advocacy in support of the community
James, you are a long-term Wikipedia user. Were it not for the fact that you have been, on occasion, a good-faith contributor, I'd not bother with this. To live outside the law, you must be honest. --Bob Dylan. You have been a long-term puppet master, creating many socks. I have no personal judgment of that, I could say that maybe WP:IAR could require it on occasion. But, of course, break the rules, get blocked. Because you are experienced, James, you should know that you are not banned on meta. You are indef blocked. You claim about the reason does not match the evidence. Rather, there was, at the time, a controversy over certain research you did. In doing that research, you created some undisclosed socks and used them to send many emails on enwiki. While the research question may have fueled some interest in your activity, you were actually blocked for sock puppetry. I'm aware that you might have had an excuse for this, a reason why the accounts should be undisclosed. However, you violated the general expectations of WMF users regarding socks and role accounts. *However, you did not do this on meta.* The block was discussed at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_CheckUser_information/Archives/2012#James_Salsman Your arguments there were unskillful. Nevertheless, I see no clear sign that you violated meta policy, or behaved there in such a way as to legitimate a block, and you could, in my opinion, be unblocked even if you did, that long ago. (The CA data shows no meta edits, for both Survey accounts, and for other known James Salsman accounts listed in the Checkuser report, except Tashir, which had 5 harmless unrelated edits, and Selery, 6 unrelated, all of these nondisruptive.) However, you have not requested unblock as instructed on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Blocked I would consider assisting you if you need it, but you must first follow procedure. I'd advise having a conversation first about how to request unblock, there are ways that work and ways that don't. Email me if you like. I will watch your talk page. Beyond that, it is likely that much that you have wanted to do could be done through Wikiversity. The issue of wiki research is a complex one, but, on Wikiversity, there is a possibility of developing ethical standards and of doing independent research. There are some issues raised by your interaction with the WMF, I'm not going to address here, beyond pointing to a very interesting discussion: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman/Inactive_administrators_survey Abd ul-Rahman Lomax I'm so excited I can't wait for Now. From: James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:03 PM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Community liaison advocacy in support of the community [...] Who can I ask to advocate in support of me getting unbanned on Meta? I was banned there because I was accused by Foundation staff of violating a research policy which had never been adopted. ___ 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
