Hi folks,
As week one draws to a close, I just wanted to say thanks for all the very kind welcomes I've gotten from you all, both here & off this list. Many people have jumped in to help me get acclimated, which I really appreciate (as you all know, there's a truly dizzying amount of stuff to soak up :-) So please consider this a collective thanks to everyone I haven't gotten back to individually.
And - I want to offer my apologies in advance to anyone or any issue I'm going to overlook in this first little while. A) I'm still getting my head around many of the internal systems (e.g., the wikis, mailing lists, etc.), and B) I'm wanting to focus on making first connections with a few people, particularly the office staff. Those are my modest goals for this past week and next; then, I've got a prior commitment that will take me completely offline from July 7-25. That means my work won't really begin until post-Wikimania.
I think you probably all have an idea of what I'm here to do. But to recap - I'm a big fan of the projects, and I'm delighted to be able to come and work with you all. And I am hoping and expecting I can help. In general: it's clear to me, and also to the Board, that the Foundation is at a pretty significant transition point. The bad news is, it's got some problems (lack of administrative policies, some communications issues, some skills gaps, etc.). The good news is, the problems are unsurprising, and for the most part typical of young organizations, and completely fixable. Upshot: I've seen -and grappled with- this kind of thing elsewhere, and I have a pretty good general grasp of the kinds of things that need to happen in order for the Foundation to get through this phase, and come out the other side stronger and better. (The other good news, by the way, is that the projects are -obviously- remarkably, phenomenally successful. So the core work of the organization is in good shape.)
Of course there's an added wrinkle here, which is that Wikimedia is truly culturally unique; it is not a 'typical' organization. Trust me - I recognize that, and I'll respect it :-)
So again - I just wanted to thank you all for your early support. If anyone needs to reach me over the next week or so, I'd suggest using susanpgardner[at]gmail.com - I'm a Blackberry person, and that's the account that travels with me.
Thanks, Sue
On 30/06/07, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to [email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Sue (todos) (Florence Devouard)
- Re: Sue (todos) (Aphaia)
- Cloaks backlog (Sean Whitton)
- Re: Welcome Sue ! (THD)
- Re: Meta-l (Azdiyy)
- Re: Meta-l (GerardM)
- Re: Meta-l (Azdiyy)
- Re: Meta-l (GerardM)
- Re: Meta-l (Michael Bimmler)
- Re: Meta-l (Azdiyy)
- just an idea: add motivation commentary line, anonymized? (oscar van dillen)
- Re: just an idea: add motivation commentary line, anonymized? (Aphaia)
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:47:46 +0200 From: Florence Devouard [email protected] Subject: [Foundation-l] Sue (todos) To: [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/28/07, Stephen Bain
[email protected] wrote:
Secondly, and this is directed more at the Board, I understand that Sue has been hired as a "consultant and special advisor" and not as Executive Director at least partly because of immigration-related restrictions on the work she is presently entitled to perform in the United States. Will the Board be providing the community with a description of the position "consultant and special advisor"? Are there any substantive differences between this position and that of Executive Director?
I see no particular reason not to post Sue's job description, but I'll ask the Chair to confirm that.
The differences between a Board-level consultant and a freshly minted ED aren't that great, as the Board needs to build a trust relationship with this new staff member in either case. Beyond 3-6 months in the future, should the professional relationship develop as expected, this status will become too limiting, and I hope the remaining constraints can be removed within that timeframe.
Hello
I am sorry, but I was not able to find an internet connection in the past 36 hours, and will probably be off for the week end. That was my last move of june (*relief*).
So, yeah, things to be done
- publish Sue job description on Foundation wiki (not done yet)
- remove the reference for ED position being searched (apparently done)
on foundation
- create her asap a sgardner at wikimedia.org
- add Sue to foundation-l, internal-l and internal wiki, office wiki,
wmfcc-l, juriwiki-l, private-l, wikimania-l, wikimania-planning-l, fundcom-l.
- add her on staff page on foundation wiki
- add her biography on foundation wiki
- add the press release on foundation wiki
- add announcement on foundation wiki (news) with links to pages "press
release" and biography
- then breath and wait till monday :-)
Ant
Message: 2 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:57:10 +0900 From: Aphaia [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sue (todos) To: [email protected], "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 6/29/07, Florence Devouard [email protected] wrote:
So, yeah, things to be done
- publish Sue job description on Foundation wiki (not done yet)
- remove the reference for ED position being searched (apparently done)
on foundation
Done
- create her asap a sgardner at wikimedia.org
Done and sent
- add Sue to foundation-l, internal-l and internal wiki, office wiki,
wmfcc-l, juriwiki-l, private-l, wikimania-l, wikimania-planning-l, fundcom-l.
- add her on staff page on foundation wiki
- add her biography on foundation wiki
- add the press release on foundation wiki
- add announcement on foundation wiki (news) with links to pages "press
release" and biography
- then breath and wait till monday :-)
- cough * vote, * cough* vote
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
- habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
Message: 3 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:02:53 +0100 From: "Sean Whitton" [email protected] Subject: [Foundation-l] Cloaks backlog To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed
Just a quick note to let you all know that your cloak requests have not been forgotten.
There is a problem with the toolserver that means I can't access the list of submissions and also that new ones are not being accepted. They are however, I believe, all in there and so it is just a matter of getting at them when the toolserver admins fix things.
Please spread this knowledge if people ask, and thank you for your patience.
-- Regards, ?Sean Whitton (seanw) http://seanwhitton.com/
Message: 4 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:39:38 +0800 From: THD [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome Sue ! To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Welcome aboard, Sue.
:)
Theodoranian
Message: 5 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:03 +0100 From: Azdiyy [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
can issues relating to multiple projects, chapters, board, and governance be discusses in the meta list azdiyy
On 28/06/07, Stephen Bain [email protected] wrote:
On 6/28/07, GerardM [email protected] wrote:
Hoi, What is meant by MetaWiki ?
http://meta.wikimedia.org
-- Stephen Bain [email protected]
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:29:33 +0200 From: GerardM [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hoi, That is exactly what the foundation-l is for I would say. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/29/07, Azdiyy [email protected] wrote:
can issues relating to multiple projects, chapters, board, and governance be discusses in the meta list?
azdiyy
On 28/06/07, Stephen Bain [email protected] wrote:
On 6/28/07, GerardM [email protected] wrote:
Hoi, What is meant by MetaWiki ?
http://meta.wikimedia.org
-- Stephen Bain [email protected]
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Message: 7 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:48:47 +0100 From: Azdiyy [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
i will start with the warning-less indef ban by one of meta [[en:Category:Rouge admins]] who blocked my ip with no warning and protected my talkpage. time for [[m:association of rouge stewards]]?
thanks, azdiyy
Message: 8 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:51:51 +0200 From: GerardM [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hoi, It is a great start that will ensure that nobody will subscribe to this list. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/29/07, Azdiyy [email protected] wrote:
i will start with the warning-less indef ban by one of meta [[en:Category:Rouge admins]] who blocked my ip with no warning and protected my talkpage. time for [[m:association of rouge stewards]]?
thanks, azdiyy
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Message: 9 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:39:13 +0200 From: "Michael Bimmler" [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
You've lost me here... First you talk of "chapters, board and governance" and then of your meta block. Sure you recognise that these two things are not really the same? Michael
On 6/29/07, Azdiyy [email protected] wrote:
i will start with the warning-less indef ban by one of meta [[en:Category:Rouge admins]] who blocked my ip with no warning and protected my talkpage. time for [[m:association of rouge stewards]]?
thanks, azdiyy
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Message: 10 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:52:14 +0100 From: Azdiyy [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta-l To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/030517.html http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10098
what do you suggest if admins on irc do not want to get involved, foundation list is no the place, and friends of teh blocking admin dont want to upset him? an azdiyy list that no one reads? bug=?
azdiyy
Message: 11 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:18:28 +0200 From: "oscar van dillen" [email protected] Subject: [Foundation-l] just an idea: add motivation commentary line, anonymized? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
just a thought that spontaneously came to me this morning which i would like to share: (i know logs are not to be published but i am just quoting myself from #wikimedia)
[09:50]<oscar>please allow me to prompt an open question: would it not be interesting to read the answers to an imaginary questionnaire about the final motivation of the voters (answers as to the "why" they voted such-and-so) [[Elections 2007/Questions to voters]] if it existed?[09:51]< oscar>like a commentary line as we have in edits, but anonymized[09:52]< oscar>alphabetically ordered in one big dump :-) (...) [09:59]<oscar>it was just a thought, like last year i suggested a debate [09:59]<oscar>which now did take place more or less[10:00]<oscar>who knows what happens next year?[10:02]<oscar>there could be several reasons for doing this however, hints for the wmf or the board, for online elections in general and perhaps reading each other's comments is useful as well?[10:03]< oscar>afterwards of course[10:03]<oscar>not *during* an election (end of quote)
curious about your opinions!
best regards, oscar
-- *edito ergo sum*
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees.
Message: 12 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:31:39 +0900 From: Aphaia [email protected] Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] just an idea: add motivation commentary line, anonymized? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I had a similar - but opponent in its appearance inquiry last year. "Why did you not vote". It helps me to organize this year Election. At least PR for this community I asked their opinion.
But I'd love to consider such after the election. Now seeing non-English communities hesitation for involvement (in Day 1, among 1100 votes, over 500 have come from enwiki alone, and there are only two other community over 100 votes were casted).
Thanks,
On 6/30/07, oscar van dillen [email protected] wrote:
just a thought that spontaneously came to me this morning which i would
like
to share: (i know logs are not to be published but i am just quoting myself from #wikimedia)
[09:50]<oscar>please allow me to prompt an open question: would it not
be
interesting to read the answers to an imaginary questionnaire about the final motivation of the voters (answers as to the "why" they voted such-and-so) [[Elections 2007/Questions to voters]] if it
existed?[09:51]<
oscar>like a commentary line as we have in edits, but anonymized[09:52]< oscar>alphabetically ordered in one big dump :-) (...) [09:59]<oscar>it was just a thought, like last year i suggested a debate [09:59]<oscar>which now did take place more or less[10:00]<oscar>who
knows
what happens next year?[10:02]<oscar>there could be several reasons for doing this however, hints for the wmf or the board, for online elections
in
general and perhaps reading each other's comments is useful as
well?[10:03]<
oscar>afterwards of course[10:03]<oscar>not *during* an election (end of quote)
curious about your opinions!
best regards, oscar
-- *edito ergo sum*
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
- habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 39, Issue 67
Sue Gardner wrote:
Hi folks,
As week one draws to a close, I just wanted to say thanks for all the very kind welcomes I've gotten from you all, both here & off this list. Many people have jumped in to help me get acclimated, which I really appreciate (as you all know, there's a truly dizzying amount of stuff to soak up :-) So please consider this a collective thanks to everyone I haven't gotten back to individually.
And - I want to offer my apologies in advance to anyone or any issue I'm going to overlook in this first little while. A) I'm still getting my head around many of the internal systems (e.g., the wikis, mailing lists, etc.), and B) I'm wanting to focus on making first connections with a few people, particularly the office staff. Those are my modest goals for this past week and next; then, I've got a prior commitment that will take me completely offline from July 7-25. That means my work won't really begin until post-Wikimania.
I think you probably all have an idea of what I'm here to do. But to recap - I'm a big fan of the projects, and I'm delighted to be able to come and work with you all. And I am hoping and expecting I can help. In general: it's clear to me, and also to the Board, that the Foundation is at a pretty significant transition point. The bad news is, it's got some problems (lack of administrative policies, some communications issues, some skills gaps, etc.). The good news is, the problems are unsurprising, and for the most part typical of young organizations, and completely fixable. Upshot: I've seen -and grappled with- this kind of thing elsewhere, and I have a pretty good general grasp of the kinds of things that need to happen in order for the Foundation to get through this phase, and come out the other side stronger and better. (The other good news, by the way, is that the projects are -obviously- remarkably, phenomenally successful. So the core work of the organization is in good shape.)
Of course there's an added wrinkle here, which is that Wikimedia is truly culturally unique; it is not a 'typical' organization. Trust me - I recognize that, and I'll respect it :-)
So again - I just wanted to thank you all for your early support. If anyone needs to reach me over the next week or so, I'd suggest using susanpgardner[at]gmail.com - I'm a Blackberry person, and that's the account that travels with me.
Thanks, Sue
In the interest of transparency alone, would you care to comment on this:
...anyone who does come forward will be immediately struck from Jimbo's "trustworthy" list, which means that he or she will not be invited to join the "really internal" list that Sue has already proposed creating; this list would contain only "really trustworthy" people and formally require nondisclosure of its participants.
Thank you
On 19/12/2007, luke brandt [email protected] wrote:
In the interest of transparency alone, would you care to comment on this:
It sounds more like the interests of querulousness that doesn't know when to quit it, but anyway.
...anyone who does come forward will be immediately struck from Jimbo's "trustworthy" list, which means that he or she will not be invited to join the "really internal" list that Sue has already proposed creating; this list would contain only "really trustworthy" people and formally require nondisclosure of its participants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_Inefficiency - inner circles always grow larger as more groups want in, and thereby become useless. So a new inner circle has to form inside the previous inner circle. This in fact describes the last several hundred years of English government.
Assume bad faith, and extrapolate from it!
- d.
luke brandt wrote:
In the interest of transparency alone, would you care to comment on this:
...anyone who does come forward will be immediately struck from Jimbo's "trustworthy" list, which means that he or she will not be invited to join the "really internal" list that Sue has already proposed creating; this list would contain only "really trustworthy" people and formally require nondisclosure of its participants.
Thank you
Three questions:
(1) Does Jimbo *really* have a "trustworthy" list? (2) Am I on it? (3) Where do I apply to get on this super-sekrit "really trustworthy" list? It sounds fun. Will there be tea and biscuits?
-Gurch
(1) Does Jimbo *really* have a "trustworthy" list?
I doubt he has it written down anywhere, but everyone has at least a mental list of people they trust.
(2) Am I on it?
You would have to ask him...
(3) Where do I apply to get on this super-sekrit "really trustworthy" list? It sounds fun. Will there be tea and biscuits?
Perhaps if you offer to supply the tea and biscuits?
Matthew Britton wrote:
(1) Does Jimbo *really* have a "trustworthy" list? (2) Am I on it? (3) Where do I apply to get on this super-sekrit "really trustworthy" list? It sounds fun. Will there be tea and biscuits?
Traditionally, we eat Stroopwafels from the Netherlands. :-)
Basically, I think we have here the clearest evidence that Kelly has crossed the line from respectable critic into complete troll. It does not matter what I do or say, she interprets it according to her own history.
She draws comparisons to Scientology and tells such obvious lies as "...Jimbo has declared me a "suppressive person" and is expecting others to act accordingly." And she is shocked when people question her honesty.
I have done no such thing, nor have I done many other things she accuses me of.
She seems perplexed by my request that anyone who thinks it is a good idea to send posts to her please contact me to explain it. For her, even this simple request is evidence of cultishness.
Wikimedia runs on a culture of trust, trust that we all have worked very hard to earn with each other. That trust is violated when people who are on an internal mailing list start sending posts, not just to a few friends, not just a little bit of loose lips... that's not a problem. But sending to someone who makes incredibly vicious personal attacks as a matter of routine on her blog.
To me, that's pretty remarkable. And someone must have a pretty remarkable reason for doing it.
They can assume that I don't care, contrary to many years of long evidence, or they can assume that, gee, if you think things are that bad, you should just come to me and talk about it.
--Jimbo
On 19/12/2007, Jimmy Wales [email protected] wrote:
Matthew Britton wrote:
(1) Does Jimbo *really* have a "trustworthy" list? (2) Am I on it? (3) Where do I apply to get on this super-sekrit "really trustworthy" list? It sounds fun. Will there be tea and biscuits?
Traditionally, we eat Stroopwafels from the Netherlands. :-)
Basically, I think we have here the clearest evidence that Kelly has crossed the line from respectable critic into complete troll. It does not matter what I do or say, she interprets it according to her own history.
She draws comparisons to Scientology and tells such obvious lies as "...Jimbo has declared me a "suppressive person" and is expecting others to act accordingly."
I think she is arguing that in Jimbo speak Troll=suppressive person
And she is shocked when people question her honesty.
I have done no such thing, nor have I done many other things she accuses me of.
She seems perplexed by my request that anyone who thinks it is a good idea to send posts to her please contact me to explain it. For her, even this simple request is evidence of cultishness.
Wikimedia runs on a culture of trust, trust that we all have worked very hard to earn with each other. That trust is violated when people who are on an internal mailing list start sending posts, not just to a few friends, not just a little bit of loose lips... that's not a problem. But sending to someone who makes incredibly vicious personal attacks as a matter of routine on her blog.
To me, that's pretty remarkable. And someone must have a pretty remarkable reason for doing it.
They want an audience without going public themselves. That pretty much means Kelly or wikitruth and people are more likely to have contacts with Kelly from the old days than with wikitruth. If you are going to leak Kelly thus becomes a logical choice.
They can assume that I don't care, contrary to many years of long evidence, or they can assume that, gee, if you think things are that bad, you should just come to me and talk about it.
Or perhaps they think the way to fix things is to make them public rather than more back channel communication.
Kelly is convenient. No evidence that she is anything more than that.
If I had to decide which set of statements is more poisonous (and pointless) I'd run with Kelly Martin's. Invective seems to be her style, and I guess as she's found it hasn't been very productive in achieving her goal (whatever that may be). On the other hand, she has got all kinds of sources! Each post apparently has a whole set of secret sources! (At least three this time, but maybe more?) Anonymous sources, who also post to her blog anonymously... Was this the irony she was referring to?
On the other hand, regarding private lists - have you considered making the community lists publically viewable but only allowing the specific group of people you've identified to post? By community lists I mean lists with contributors who aren't officially connected to or bound by WMF. Internal communications, in keeping with the standard corporate meaning, should include people internal to the actual organizational structure who are bound by confidentiality agreements.
Just in general terms, anything you say to a semi-public audience will eventually leak - better to just address the public audience first, and say only what you wouldn't mind everyone hearing. And when Kelly comments, don't feed.
Nathan
Kelly is sensationalist, but she's sharp. She has a rare combination of deep knowledge about wikipedia and a deep suspicion of everyone and everything (by contrast, the harshest wikipedia critics have traditionally been woefully misinformed about how the project works), which means she turns over rocks that other people don't.
Frankly, I think insiders need to start displaying more humility. There's a bit of a PR crisis going on. If kelly makes valid points in a needlessly abrasive way, nobody's going to win an argument against her by saying she's a troll.
On Dec 19, 2007 4:57 PM, Nathan Awrich [email protected] wrote:
If I had to decide which set of statements is more poisonous (and pointless) I'd run with Kelly Martin's. Invective seems to be her style, and I guess as she's found it hasn't been very productive in achieving her goal (whatever that may be). On the other hand, she has got all kinds of sources! Each post apparently has a whole set of secret sources! (At least three this time, but maybe more?) Anonymous sources, who also post to her blog anonymously... Was this the irony she was referring to?
On the other hand, regarding private lists - have you considered making the community lists publically viewable but only allowing the specific group of people you've identified to post? By community lists I mean lists with contributors who aren't officially connected to or bound by WMF. Internal communications, in keeping with the standard corporate meaning, should include people internal to the actual organizational structure who are bound by confidentiality agreements.
Just in general terms, anything you say to a semi-public audience will eventually leak - better to just address the public audience first, and say only what you wouldn't mind everyone hearing. And when Kelly comments, don't feed.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The problem here is that the rock she's turning over is "Oh, look, I've become controversial, and people want me out of the loop because of that! Isn't this a scandal?"
Kelly's claim is that this is an in-crowd cultish behavior. It's also interpretable as attention seeking drama.
There could be cultish behavior on internal lists (I am not on any such list, so I haven't got any evidence either way). But I find that in general, people behave in private much like they behave in public, but with moderately less restraint.
-george
On Dec 19, 2007 4:25 PM, Ben Yates [email protected] wrote:
Kelly is sensationalist, but she's sharp. She has a rare combination of deep knowledge about wikipedia and a deep suspicion of everyone and everything (by contrast, the harshest wikipedia critics have traditionally been woefully misinformed about how the project works), which means she turns over rocks that other people don't.
Frankly, I think insiders need to start displaying more humility. There's a bit of a PR crisis going on. If kelly makes valid points in a needlessly abrasive way, nobody's going to win an argument against her by saying she's a troll.
On Dec 19, 2007 4:57 PM, Nathan Awrich [email protected] wrote:
If I had to decide which set of statements is more poisonous (and pointless) I'd run with Kelly Martin's. Invective seems to be her style, and I guess as she's found it hasn't been very productive in achieving her goal (whatever that may be). On the other hand, she has got all kinds of sources! Each post apparently has a whole set of secret sources! (At least three this time, but maybe more?) Anonymous sources, who also post to her blog anonymously... Was this the irony she was referring to?
On the other hand, regarding private lists - have you considered making the community lists publically viewable but only allowing the specific group of people you've identified to post? By community lists I mean lists with contributors who aren't officially connected to or bound by WMF. Internal communications, in keeping with the standard corporate meaning, should include people internal to the actual organizational structure who are bound by confidentiality agreements.
Just in general terms, anything you say to a semi-public audience will eventually leak - better to just address the public audience first, and say only what you wouldn't mind everyone hearing. And when Kelly comments, don't feed.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ben Yates wrote:
Frankly, I think insiders need to start displaying more humility. There's a bit of a PR crisis going on. If kelly makes valid points in a needlessly abrasive way, nobody's going to win an argument against her by saying she's a troll.
Even in cases when someone actually is a troll, there's little to gain from pointing that out in the open.
I was reading through The Register's articles and comments about "naked short selling" the other day, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
I have not been involved in this chain of events at all. But I was thinking of how a similar case could be handled if it happened in Sweden. Perhaps we have been fortunate in having really good (natural talent, rather than professional) press contacts. The current one, Lennart Guldbrandsson, is also chair of Wikimedia Sverige and the true Mr. Nice Guy, always smiling.
The press contact of Wikimedia UK, David Gerard, being portrayed in the article (page 5) as one of the bad guys makes his task quite impossible in this case. If he tried to speak the voice of reason against The Register, right or wrong, readers would inevitably ask if he is defending Wikipedia or his own skin. What can we learn from this? Maybe press people need a backup?
Among the reader comments, one points to [[talk:Overstock.com]] where Jimbo on December 13 writes The Register off as a "tabloid blog with a tiny audience". This is a mistake. Even though it is less used in the U.S., it has an absolutely dominating position among nerds in the U.K. and large parts of Europe. Think of it as a mix of Slashdot and CNET. Compare it to Germany's heise.de. It's what people (well, programmers) read on a daily basis.
Jimbo is doing a fantastic job for the Foundation. But he's closer to the U.S. than the U.K. He's also no longer the chair and spends time on South Africa and other new directions. Anthere is also doing a fantastic job, but the reader comments of The Register never refer to her, only to Jimbo. This could be an advantage: She's not tainted by involvement in any such "scandal". But it's also likely that too few people, especially in the English speaking world, know of her as chair of the Foundation. I think there is a greater public role to be played here.
They can assume that I don't care, contrary to many years of long evidence, or they can assume that, gee, if you think things are that bad, you should just come to me and talk about it.
--Jimbo
Would be nice if you actually responded to your emails. I have send you a few emails but you never reacted to any.
Waerth
Waerth wrote:
They can assume that I don't care, contrary to many years of long evidence, or they can assume that, gee, if you think things are that bad, you should just come to me and talk about it.
--Jimbo
Would be nice if you actually responded to your emails. I have send you a few emails but you never reacted to any.
What email address did you send them from? I have no record of unanswered emails from you in my inbox, and you would be one of the people who I would tend to respond to instinctively.
If you have unanswered concerns, please resend.
--Jimbo