On Fri May 23 23:06:32 UTC 2014 Wil Sinclair wrote:
The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
On Sat May 24 21:33:07 UTC 2014 David Gerard wrote:
It's a festering pit of spammers, trolls and
On 25 May 2014 01:11, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
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
On 25/05/2014 12:16, David Gerard wrote:
The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community
members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering
you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is
actually making the world a better place, dot by
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community
members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering
you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is
actually making the
Wil Sinclair, 25/05/2014 02:00:
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?
*ding don* false dichotomy bell rings: why are so many discussing about
wiki stuff on
MZMcBride wrote:
I've read your replies and I understand what you're saying (succinctly
summarized by you as ,Wil!=LilaWil!=WMF), but what you're saying and
what your actions are saying seem to be in contrast. If you want to get
involved with Wikimedia, by all means, that would be great. But
*ding don* false dichotomy bell rings: why are so many discussing about wiki
stuff on Facebook? Or in person with their family? Or or or or or?
Besides knowing for a fact that we're not discussing anything like
this in our family for obvious reasons, I don't know whether they are
being
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community
members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering
you an
On 25 May 2014 17:04, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
Besides knowing for a fact that we're not discussing anything like
this in our family for obvious reasons, I don't know whether they are
being discussed on Facebook or elsewhere. But I do know that they are
being discussed quite
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: And
this conversation is
getting pretty repetitive, isn't it?
Yep!
Remember that some of the harsher reactions here have more to do with WR/WO
than you.
Hope the long string of uniformly negative reactions on the list haven't
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
On 23/05/2014 20:21, Wil Sinclair wrote:
I'd love to explain why I participate on Wikipediocracy, as well as on
the Wikimedia projects. I've already explained it to the WO folks. If
you guys are interested, feel free to start another thread asking me
about it. It's OT for this thread, however.
OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?
Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.
I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
them. Some of us feel
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:06:32 -0700
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?
Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.
I participate on WO because I
Wil Sinclair, 24/05/2014 01:06:
If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
accurate information,
Not really. Generally people are concerned about
a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation,
ad hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian;
2) getting distracted by
On 24 May 2014 00:24, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. Generally people are concerned about
a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad
hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian;
2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.
I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
them. Some of us feel
Not really. Generally people are concerned about
a) giving legitimacy to an organised group for consensus manipulation, ad
hominem attacks and harassment of wikimedian;
2) getting distracted by hypothetically legitimate but secondary or
irrelevant issues.
Nemo
Hi Nemo, thanks for the
I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks
Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his
wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger
approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the
I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really
the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself
is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the
project. Wikipediocracy is where people go to gossip and troll,
On 24 May 2014 00:06, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
OK, can you explain why you participate on Wikipediocracy?
Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active
wikipediocracy memeber?
I participate on WO
I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks
Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his
wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger
approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active
wikipediocracy memeber?
Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the
question that who asked it.
You know where 4chan is I assume.
No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it?
Again you cite free
Well, Wil, I caught your early posts there and was of the impression you
joined to protect the privacy of a member of your family. And out of
respect for that I declined to ask the question you seemed to be begging to
be asked.
You wouldn't be the first Wikimedian who felt that was a necessary
Wil Sinclair wrote:
I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or
mocks Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping
into his wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking
the ginger approach to the most controversial issues that have
On 05/23/2014 07:06 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
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
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
From the interactions I've observed, you (Wil) are too smart to be doing
what you're doing, which makes some of your behavior all the more worrying.
Thanks!
You're willfully ignoring the consequences (real and potential) of your
actions. I'm worried about what it says when you have 18 posts
57 matches
Mail list logo
