On 02/17/11 10:49 AM, whothis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
>> Actually, we already do this. I make a point of visiting AN, AN/I, RfA,
>> Village pump, and at least glance at the conversations on 11 mailing
>> lists several times throughout my day (or tea
On 02/16/11 10:35 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Yeah, I realize (after the painkillers have worn off) that I actually meant
> to say "hostility and suspicion" more than I meant to say criticism.
> Criticism should always be welcome. I'm talking about the unfounded stuff.
>
> I agree with your conclu
On 02/16/11 10:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> If criticism is unduly harsh in your opinion, you should say so to the
> people doing the criticizing as it happens (privately or publicly). Nobody's
> perfect; sometimes people are too harsh. And sometimes text is just mis-read
> or mis-phrased. That's the
On 02/16/11 9:14 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten,
> regardless
> of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown out
> the window. This thread is about when it happens to staff but the same exact
> thing happens
On 02/17/11 10:16 AM, Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
> On 2/17/11 8:29 AM, whothis wrote:
>> If someone asks a question in a
>> conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually and
>> expect that to satisfy the rest of the audience.
> Actually, I'd like to beg to differ here.
Actually, scrap that. I can think of a few more than two. But the extra ones
are all from one common cause - robust views being stated off-wiki to fellow
users with advanced privileges, who were badly failing to live up to
expectations of the role. On a few occasions that's happened. I'm thinking
o
Of note, arguments against the spirit of the civility policy badly miss the
point Marc and others are making. The expectation for collegial conduct
between editors (by whatever name) is not a means of repression as some cast
it. Its a means to ensure those who will leave if bitten, don't get bitte
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop
>> responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion
>> and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where
>> goes against th
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop
> responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion
> and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where
> goes against the very th
> On 2/18/2011 12:38 PM, Zack Exley wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM, phoebe ayerswrote:
>>> And it's worth pointing out the obvious -- the reason there are so
>>> many places is because it's nearly impossible to keep up with
>>> *everything* going on in the communit(ies)* all the time.
On 2/18/2011 12:38 PM, Zack Exley wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM, phoebe ayerswrote:
>> And it's worth pointing out the obvious -- the reason there are so
>> many places is because it's nearly impossible to keep up with
>> *everything* going on in the communit(ies)* all the time. Even a
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> And it's worth pointing out the obvious -- the reason there are so
> many places is because it's nearly impossible to keep up with
> *everything* going on in the communit(ies)* all the time. Even a
> subset of that discussion can be too muc
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>
>> One suggestion I made was that, since communication between office and
>> community is so critical, it might be worth the foundation employing one
>> person at the office purely for community/office liaison (via this list,
>> on
>> Meta,
I meant more exactly, a staff member whose role is not just to watch over
and be aware, but in fact to actively liaise with community members, respond
on lists or wikis, etc.
Rob did a bit of that as have others, Jimbo still answers posts on his talk
pages, but someone whose role is to liaise and
On 17 February 2011 18:49, whothis wrote:
> All that seems rather useless for the most part, I doubt anything from an
> RfA or the AN/I has been brought up this list.
WT:RFA tends to be pretty wide ranging and WP:AN/I is one of the
places major flareups can begin (although I would generally sugge
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Christine Moellenberndt <
cmoellenber...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 2/17/11 9:23 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > Yes, worthwhile, although this list would be only a minor part of such
> > monitoring. An experienced Wikipedian needs to monitor the mailing lists,
> > Vil
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Christine Moellenberndt <
cmoellenber...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/11 8:29 AM, whothis wrote:
> >
> > If someone asks a question in a
> > conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually
> and
> > expect that to satisfy the rest of th
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, FT2 wrote:
> Not quite so. I've just been working at the "community department" and
> indeed, it does include quite a large proportion from the community. When
> I
> was there, Steve Walling was around, two people from Russian community were
> working in the co
On 2/17/11 8:29 AM, whothis wrote:
>
> If someone asks a question in a
> conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually and
> expect that to satisfy the rest of the audience.
Actually, I'd like to beg to differ here. I have been to conferences
where questions have been a
On 2/17/11 9:23 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Yes, worthwhile, although this list would be only a minor part of such
> monitoring. An experienced Wikipedian needs to monitor the mailing lists,
> Village Pump, requests for arbitration, and the administrative
> noticeboards regularly and prepare a brief s
>
> One suggestion I made was that, since communication between office and
> community is so critical, it might be worth the foundation employing one
> person at the office purely for community/office liaison (via this list,
> on
> Meta, etc). In other words their role is to be at the office and
>
Not quite so. I've just been working at the "community department" and
indeed, it does include quite a large proportion from the community. When I
was there, Steve Walling was around, two people from Russian community were
working in the community department for a week, Seddon from enwiki and
Wik
>
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
>> to escape the unfounded criticism.
>
> Tell them to go ahead, this list has already been referred to troll-l and
> a
> dozen excuses have been offered why the staff ignores i
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Alison M. Wheeler <
wikime...@alisonwheeler.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17 February 2011 08:47, Christine Moellenberndt
> > (and by the way, this is just little me with a cat on her lap
> > talking, not WMF employee talking)
>
> Something which might be worth bearing in m
> On 17 February 2011 08:47, Christine Moellenberndt
> (and by the way, this is just little me with a cat on her lap
> talking, not WMF employee talking)
Something which might be worth bearing in mind is that (sfaiaa!) everyone
involved with the projects - staff and volunteer alike - use a cons
- Original Message
> From: Dan Rosenthal
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:07:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
>
>
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
snip
>
I stayed at the WMF offices a couple of months ago and checking out this gap
was one of the aims of my visit. It was quite an eye opener.
Although WMF staff can learn to communicate better, the position seems to be
that the community grossly under-estimates what they are doing, their
competence, a
Hoi,
Communication is why I am absolutely happy when I find someone from the
staff doing his or her thing on meta or foundation-l. When you compare that
to the separation between the professionals and the community that is the
result of the many private ways of communicating.
Why for instance is t
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Christine Moellenberndt
wrote:
> I am loathe to dive in here, since it was my post that kind of
> kick-started this whole thing and I certainly don't want to draw any
> more fire to be honest.
Don't worry you didn't kick start anything, It's been started for a
long
Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
> I feel like part of the problem here is that there's an expectation of
> perfection right out of the box for everyone. One of the biggest
> complaints I've been hearing as we start figuring out why it is so many
> new editors don't come back to the project is, "I c
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Christine Moellenberndt <
cmoellenber...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I am loathe to dive in here, since it was my post that kind of
> kick-started this whole thing and I certainly don't want to draw any
> more fire to be honest. But I also feel loathe to stay away, pa
I am loathe to dive in here, since it was my post that kind of
kick-started this whole thing and I certainly don't want to draw any
more fire to be honest. But I also feel loathe to stay away, partially
for that same reason, but also because of a few other things I've been
thinking about not j
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:49 AM, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 17/02/2011 03:41, Dan Rosenthal a écrit :
>> Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out
>> that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say "assume good
>> faith"? That does not make much sense to me.
Le 17/02/2011 03:41, Dan Rosenthal a écrit :
> Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out
> that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say "assume good
> faith"? That does not make much sense to me. Good faith is a two-way street.
Not at all. I'm say
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 21:00, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already,
>
>
You might be surprised at the number that do subscribe. Not that I've got
an official count (since people use their personal accounts, such as
myself), but a majority o
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 17/02/2011 02:07, Dan Rosenthal a écrit :
>> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend;
>> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including
>> ones where staff subscriptions are more prev
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:29 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend;
>> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including
>> ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (a
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend;
> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including
> ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although
> I'm going to disagree with you and suggest
On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already,
> though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. Wikimedia
> employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required
> to be subscribed to this li
Le 17/02/2011 02:07, Dan Rosenthal a écrit :
> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend;
> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including
> ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although
> I'm going to dis
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
> >> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
> >> to escape the unfounded criticism.
> >
> It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are "
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
>>> to escape the unfounded criticism.
>>
>> This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
>> to escape the unfounded criticism.
>
> This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of
> weeks, in which WMF employees were exce
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
> to escape the unfounded criticism.
This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of
weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their
44 matches
Mail list logo
