On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Risker wrote:
> The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are
> formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees. I would love to see
> them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations and
> their experiences; they h
> Truth is, I'm not even sure I want to get into this. And, for the record,
> this inquiry concerns only the English Wikipedia Project. I spend 99% of
> the
> time I have to devote to the English Wikipedia Project at editing
> articles;
> the other 1% being spent on the Mailing Lists. So, consequen
Truth is, I'm not even sure I want to get into this. And, for the record,
this inquiry concerns only the English Wikipedia Project. I spend 99% of the
time I have to devote to the English Wikipedia Project at editing articles;
the other 1% being spent on the Mailing Lists. So, consequently, I know
Regarding vested contributors, they are both a good and a bad thing -
good in that retaining them means retaining experience, bad in that
some of them have a sense of entitlement and that a few attract a
"posse" that helps them to realize that entitlement.
Cabalism is an unfortunate side effect of
On 31 January 2011 14:38, David Gerard wrote:
> On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker wrote:
>
> > In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't
> Wikipedia
> > Governance Central.
>
>
> It's the closest en:wp has.
>
>
> > I have no idea what the board members are saying on the i
I agree that Arbcom could and should act against any incivil admins.
But I'm not convinced that incivil admins are a big part of our
civility problem.
Nor do I think it is primarily about Vested contributors, who know
that their contribution history means they can get away with rudeness
that would
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Marc Riddell
wrote:
>[...]
> The problem of abusive, combative, counter-productive behavior between (and
> among) persons in the Project is not going to be solved with new rules or
> policies - but by example. [...]
Agreed, but it's not just that simple. We hav
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 31 January 2011 19:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>> Please review
>>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
>>> If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for
>>> years, I file a reques
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 31 January 2011 19:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Please review
>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
>> If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for
>> years, I file a request for arbi
On 31/01/2011 19:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
> If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for
> years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration
> Committee to address the question.
>
> If you think that is not in your remit, please review:
> https://secure.wikime
On 31 January 2011 19:48, David Gerard wrote:
> If the admins - who the arbcom do in fact directly supervise - are
> enlightened as to the importance of civility, they *will* enforce it
> in the rest of the community. Because they won't put up with others
> behaving badly when they're not being a
On 31 January 2011 19:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Please review
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
> If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for
> years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration
> Committee to address the q
> On 31 January 2011 11:18, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago.
>> > Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as
>> far
>> > as the gender gap is concer
On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker wrote:
> In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't Wikipedia
> Governance Central.
It's the closest en:wp has.
> I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L mailing
> list; however, if they're expressing concerns
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:43 AM, George Herbert
wrote:
> Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
I note that the question I was asked was specifically, "is Wikipedia's
culture unfriendly to women?"
My feelings on the topic are
I think most of the responses here have people attempting to chain
their own personal hobby horses to the issue of the gender gap. Sure,
we have preexisting issues that could possibly alleviate that gap if
addressed, but does anyone think that increasing RFA standards or
ArbCom policies regarding
On 31/01/2011 19:07, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
> I think Risker hit the nail on the head. ArbCom is organized purely as a
> "court of last resort", but in the absence of other effective and
> streamlined governance, or a vast political change within en.wp's community,
> the only likely way any ref
Risker has pinned the issue; what the English Wikipedia suffers from
> is a lack of leadership. The global, decentralised, community
> self-managed nature of Wikipedia has allowed for many great things...
> but it has its drawbacks, among them the complete inability to enforce
> social norms.
>
>
O
I think Risker hit the nail on the head. ArbCom is organized purely as a
"court of last resort", but in the absence of other effective and
streamlined governance, or a vast political change within en.wp's community,
the only likely way any reform could happen is for it to be imposed by the
WMF.
Ma
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Risker wrote:
> I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L mailing
> list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there,
> they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where there
> are concerns. Themselv
On 31 January 2011 13:01, David Gerard wrote:
> On 31 January 2011 17:49, Risker wrote:
>
> > I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are
> > proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and
> everyone
> > else?) when they know perfectly well that
On 31 January 2011 17:49, Risker wrote:
> I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are
> proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and everyone
> else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of the
> committee to do so.
T
On 31 January 2011 11:18, David Gerard wrote:
> On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
> > I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago.
> > Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far
> > as the gender gap is concerned (sadly).
On 31 January 2011 16:27, Nathan wrote:
> They could but they won't; anyone on this list knows that it's been
> tried before. Making admins the "civility police" as some folks like
> to call them is too difficult a nut for the Wikipedia community to
> crack. Either the admins are bad, the rules a
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Nathan wrote:
> They could but they won't; anyone on this list knows that it's been
> tried before. Making admins the "civility police" as some folks like
> to call them is too difficult a nut for the Wikipedia community to
> crack. Either the admins are bad, the
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago.
>>> Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as
>>> far
>>> as the gender gap is co
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
>> I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago.
>> Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far
>> as the gender gap is concerned (sad
On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago.
> Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far
> as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people
> standing for ArbCom being aske
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> But I think you misunderstand: "user friendliness" is a term applied to
> software and interfaces, not communities.
As far as new users go, the community, the software, and the interface are
one in t
On 31/01/2011 14:00, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 1/31/11 7:30 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
> wrote:
>> As an advocate of keeping "user friendliness" and "friendliness" issues
>> separate in discussing enWP,
> I don't agree with you here, Charles. The tone of interaction, inc
> On 31/01/2011 06:43, George Herbert wrote:
>> Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
on 1/31/11 7:30 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
>>
> As an advocate of keeping "user friendliness" and "
On 31/01/2011 06:43, George Herbert wrote:
> Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
>
As an advocate of keeping "user friendliness" and "friendliness" issues
separate in discussing enWP, I'd like to note that the "gender gap" i
Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
33 matches
Mail list logo
