On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 12:57, Ziko van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Could you please explain which of the mails in this thread are problematic > in your opinion? I think that I made a factual statement in the most > neutral way. > The strong focus on voting is in itself, not neutral. Voting at this scale cannot measure the needs of the wider movement. These plans affect hundreds of thousands of editors. Making decisions based on the vote of a the few hundred contributors who comment, would misrepresent the movement and lead to populist decisions stemming from the strong status quo bias <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias>. The purpose of the consultations is to give constructive feedback to positively influence the outcome. Effort-less votes would misunderstand the purpose and only create disruption. That's not helpful to our cause. A collaborative mindset is necessary to move forward with implementing the Medium term plan <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019> . > Anders, your opinion is that the recommendations are „wonderful“. I want to > tolerate your opinion. But do you also tolerate other opinions? Or do you > think that opponents need a better „attitude“? > I don't see that Anders would have trouble "tolerating" the opposing opinions. A "better tone and attitude" would mean to express our opinion in less combative and more constructive ways. Maybe you meant to "Respect your opinion", which implies a more positive judgement. Nuances can differentiate between a civil and a tense atmosphere. Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
