User talk:Sue Gardner

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Welcome!

Looks like you've never been welcomed! :-(

Welcome!

Hello, Sue Gardner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cbrown1023 talk 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

An idea to help one of WP's editor gaps

Filling the gaps

I was thinking about some of the gaps the foundation is working to fill and I wondered if anyone has considered extending Campus Ambassador type programs to "adult education," "community education," "continuing education" or other classes that people tend to take later in life? This would have the dual benefits of diversifying our editor pool and also tapping a group of people that tend to have some spare time.

Part of the reason for some contributors fading out may simply be the business of careers or raising family as they leave young adult hood. I've often been struck by the Mormon model of missionary work and how it recognizes this. There is a pool of young 19 to 24 years old missionaries, but there is also a large number of senior missionaries who volunteer as retirees. I'm not suggesting that the Foundation is a church (!) but I think we could do well to consider that young adulthood is only one of the two times in life when people tend to have more free time and fewer career obligations. Cloveapple (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination: Dreamyshade

I nominate User:Dreamyshade for the ED's Barnstar. She's been consistently editing, dicussing, guiding, gnoming and adding substantive content, contributing images, and generally being constructive on Wikipedia for about ten years. Sumanah (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Letter to the Executive Director

Dear Sue,

perhaps it might be wise to consider that questioning judgment, intelligence and empathy, publicly and repeatedly, of the unpaid volunteers that generate the money you take home every month could quite possibly not be the most effective strategy known to man.

If you’re not so sure about that, perhaps you should commission a report that deals with the question if people donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation because

• a) they trust the editorial judgment of the communities that create Wikipedia and all these other (more often than not) really useful sites or
• b) they think the Foundation’s Executive Director (whose position wouldn’t even exist without the countless hours of volunteer work that predated its creation) is doing such a terrific job at telling those same people, publicly and repeatedly, that they lack in empathy.

I have a feeling that the results might tend a little bit towards a), even among female, not so computer-savvy or non-white donors.

Your sincerely, The Man Who Yelled At Ting -- 15:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

@Carbidfisher: Less coffee, please. Thnx.

@Sue: Nevertheless I think this blogpost wasn't very helpful in a way to calm things down. Maybe you'll find a way to say you are sorry. Regards, --Kellerkind (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

pretty much +1. You can't expect those (the critics) to find compromises with you, while there is till the insult as non-empathic in the world and i saw nowhere any taking back of those words by you or a real apology. That is the first step. And the guarantee that the filter won't be forced in any way. On this I neither trust you nor the Board ... as sad as it is that I can't trust the heads of the project i immolated so much of my free time and money upon, on which i wrote over 400 articles and seven of them as featured and five as good articles. I did 30.000 edits, not to provocate, but to offer best information to the reader. I see no respect for me and other critics. How can this be a basis for dialogue. If possible I will be at the event with you on november here in Germany. The first sentence you should say should imply a "sorry". --Julius1990 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Carbidfischer, Kellerkind, Julius1990. I've been meaning to reply here for a while, and there are some comments on my German WP talkpage that I want to respond to, as well.

Really, what my blog post and the reactions to it have shown me is how little mutual understanding there is between me and the German editorial community. That's a shame, but it's better for me to know it than not know it, so that I can aim to fix it.

I know about a dozen German Wikipedians personally, which is not very many. Typically the Germans I know best are the ones who interact on the meta-level lists, in English, and/or who turn up at international events, or are involved with the chapter. The language barrier is a real challenge for me. In English, I can easily read people's contributions and participation in discussions, and they can read mine --- so even if I haven't interacted individually with somebody, we can get a pretty good sense of each other by reading the wikis. Upshot being: it is difficult for me to interact easily and fluidly with the German community, because I do not speak German, and that's a shame.

So. Upon reflection, I think I probably made four mistakes in my blog post. First, I assumed that the people reading it would understand my starting point: that I've got tons of respect for all editors, and that I admire and support their work. For anyone who doesn't know me, that apparently is not obvious, and so I guess it's understandable that they felt provoked or attacked by what I wrote. That's a shame. Second, I probably made a mistake by kicking off the post by writing about the appearance of the vulva article on the main page of the German Wikipedia. I did it innocently, because I think it's a really great example of the problem we face. In using a specific example, though, I needlessly alienated good editors such as Achim Rashka, who I gather misunderstood me and felt I was criticizing the article itself. I regret that: I wasn't criticizing the article, and I would never deliberately antagonize editors who do good work. My third mistake was thinking that I could talk solely about editorial issues, while people were still anxious that the Wikimedia Foundation was going to impose a category-based image filter on the projects regardless of whether they wanted it. For the purposes of that blog post, I was attempting to set aside the issue of the filter, but in retrospect it's obvious that lots of people were not going to be able to have an editorial conversation, while the image filter was acting as a kind of elephant in the room. And fourth, I knew ---even as I wrote it I knew, but I ignored my own misgivings--- that calling out provocateurs and agitators, was going to be, itself, provocative. Wikimedians, I have learned in my time with you all, are super-sensitive to negative labels, and tend to feel like they personally are being criticized, even when they're not. I truly was speaking, not to all editors and not to people opposed to the filter --- I was speaking to people who I believe were at the time deliberately enjoying and escalating the conflict, rather than attempting to try to work towards a solution. I was asking those people to stop doing that. But I realize that lots of people wrongly thought I was talking to them, and felt accused and maligned, so I regret that I didn't just omit that point altogether.

So the post was in four ways clumsy, and I regret being clumsy. I don't like offending people, and I didn't mean to offend people. But I did learn some things from the experience. One important thing I learned was that I don't know enough about the editorial leaders in the German Wikimedia community. I know some of the chapter leadership, I know a few of the chapter staff, and I know the Germans who show up to international events, and who participate in the meta-level discussions in English. That's not sufficient, and I'm going to dedicate some energy now to better understanding the folks who write articles on the German Wikipedia. It's important that I do that, because the German community is important in and of itself, and also because I believe that as the most mature language-version, it's a bellwether or a canary in the coal mine, for us all. That's why I'm coming to Germany in a few weeks, and I'm also asking some of the Foundation staff to help me identify important German editors, so that the Foundation can develop deeper and smarter relationships with them. I will look forward to meeting you Julius1990, and whoever else turns up :-) Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. So you are saying, essentially, that, after almost four years on the job, you still don’t know what you are doing but you hope to, some day, get to a point where you might know? I’m not very happy with that, given the responsibility you have and the donor’s money you get. In a position as the one you have, you can’t reflect after doing something, you have to reflect before you do it. Sorry, but clumsy ain’t enough. -- Carbidfischer (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all thank you, Sue. I think to admit that there were things going wrong and the way you handled it is the first step to the better. But your post leads to further problems. You see the Vulva article from your point of view, you instrumentalized it for your opion. Now, you are not the usual reader of the german Wikipedia and so the german Wikipedians are not the usual reader. There was a discussion about the picture before it was shown and while it was shown, but what does it say? That we Wikipedians often like to argue? True. That we have different opions what to present sometimes? True too, but not to solve with any filter, but starting point for the editorial process (which can't be lead from San Francisco). When you are well informed than you know *irony on* that the Vulva picture was such a scandal that there was dozenz of news articles and blog posts criticising it, the amin news on tv asked "Wikipedians going to insanity? - Many readers need a doctor after being shocked by a Vulva" *irony off*. There was no such raection? Why? Because it isn't in the german speaking cultural room as controversial as you think? Could that be? And using your term, would it be empathic imposing a filter in any way there where no such filter is favored? I think you also heard about the law that passed, but which filter never was implented, because the Germans are such filter fans? I think you have to understand that in Germany there is no problem with the front page girl in very little clothing and a naughty context of the BILD tabloid. In Germany there never would be any controversial about sexual education. The Vulva picture i saw the first time at grammar school. I saw it two more times in secondary school projected on the wall and whenever i wanted to see it in the sexuality section of my biology book. Such communities who hink for their readers they need a hiding feature, they did this edotorial choice already like on hebrew and the Origin of teh World. And taht can eb jsut an editorial decision and even if you maybe don't like it or even think different: The editors are we, not you in San Francisco. And we have no intention to shock people or make them angry or whatever, but to provide the best encyclopedic prodouct on teh german speaking internet. And if soemone shoudl eb offended by something in a different language version? Hmm, if i want to see the Origin of teh World in Hebrew pe default, why doesn't that count as much? Little story about that, in my school three muslims who had to do a presentation about Mohammed used a picture of him (oh my god), and even more shocking they reflected about when it was allowed to show him, when it got forbidden and why and then they explained why the choosed to show a picture. Really shocking news for someone from Aceh, but also opion from muslims.

To me it is shocking to read how much you live in an own world in San Francisco. I think there are various projects you could work on that would help much more than filter. You know mostly Wikimedians, but that is just a part of the heterogenous community. I won't be able to attend at Hannover, what also is pretty much a Wikimeda event. The Wikimenias are also mostly visited by Wikimedians. In your position i would try to get more connected to bigger parts of the community. I would propose community meetings in the different (bigger) wikipedia versions, where everyone could then tell in five minutes or so his/her opions/wishes etc. to the Foundation. And this way the Foundation would also get things to work about where the editors see any reasonable use and worth. To me it is shocking to see that the Foundation knows so little about Wikipedians communication and work. It is a shame that you think the little minority on Meta and the mailinglists would be enough, but i see no try to reach out. From all your workers noone can take care of good communication into the projects by having a list of pages, where important notes can be placed to get tarnslated and the on-project discussion started? Or who could say Wikimedia-Worker xy you are from Germany, there is a big discussion now going on, i can't follow it, please have an eye on it and think of ways to get an agreement? Why are basic things so underdeveloped? To do the point: You want to reach new editors i new parts of the world, but are not able to communiate with those you already have? That is - sorry - a shame and ridicoulous. Think about it. You can't lead the Foundation against the editors who use their free time and money to generate the content taht allows you fundraising and having your job at all and so on. The Foundation should think about that she is on the way to act against the basis, and the Foundation should do a reality check is she leading or are the one leading and have the right for it who build the encyclopedia? I think that needs to be discussed, and it needs to be discussed much much much more than an image filter.

And according to what i now got to know about teh process of building the fake poll etc. Get professional! First of all and taht is very basic: First do all the research before making a decision. Second it is a community project. The Communities needs to eb informed as early as possible, a "sorry, too late" like made by Ting in Nürnberg is poison for any compromise. And third be transparent. That it needed so much time to get now open and honestly explained by Erik Möller is sad. And that it needed to teh serious threat of a Fork or better to say consideration of it as last solution, taht this form of dialogue like now done by Erik can happen can't be possible. Why couldn't the diaogue way to teh community be taken directly? I think you have to review and rethink your way of working in San Francisco. In my opion as an editor and not Wikimedian there are big, big (structural and personal) problems. And you shoudl think the very majority of the editors are NOT Wikimedians. Try to think about it Sue and again thank you that you at least admit taht you made misteaks. Julius1990 (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC) PS: Ask maybe Erik Möller for more details. I want 100% transparent report how the decisions were taken, how it came that before adequate research about the problem already a decision was made. I want to know who fucked it up and why. I want to know how the Foundation will handle such things in the future. I want to read how you see your position in the editorial process and i propose that you see that the Foundation has nothing to say in this process but just to take care that the fundamental rules never get changed or mistreated. And i thinke even without editorial influence you have already enough to do and fail on so basic things like the communication with the existing communities and editors. Ironic that while you can't even handle the xisting, you want to reach out and get even more editors from even more regions. By the way, how do you want to make any adequate editorial decision while you know nearly nothing about the Wikipedias, the Wikipedians and the intern structures, processes and so on? And with you i mean all of you over there. I can't get rid of the feelings that you live in your own world and even those who originally came from the communities losse the contact more and more ... Julius1990 (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Sue, It was a pleasure meeting you, Matthew, and the other wikipedians who made my visit to the Foundation on Friday such a lovely experience. I am proud to associate with people who do such important work -- contributing in our various ways to this encyclopedia. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Sue, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ED Barnstar

Hallo Sue, first of all, thanks for the ED Barnstar! And do not worry: I am also the person in charge of translating Wikimedia Italia News in English, so I am supposed at least to be able to read English... ciao, .mau. ✉ 20:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .mau. (talk • contribs)

Hi Sue.

I'd like to thank you, as well, for the acknowledgment you wanted to give me, and to thank Frieda for making the nomination. To be honest this was actually a surprise to me, as I feel that I have had a role not different from all the others involved in this situation: as you have stated, the decision has been taken during a good community process thus I'll consider the barnstar not given to me personally, but to all the it.wikip community which, openly and collaboratively, went through such tough a process. I'd expecially like to acknowledge those who did not agreed with the decision but discussed it in a constructive way, pointing out the improvements that could be introduced in managing such situations, if ever such a situation will need to be managed again in the future (which I really hope will not be the case). --Pap3rinik (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

• From the editors: A call for contributors

• Opinion essay: There is a deadline

• Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

• In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

• WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

• Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)