Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

WMF and the press

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

wikimail at inbox

Apr 26, 2008, 9:37 AM

Post #1 of 14 (846 views)
Permalink

WMF and the press

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
> b) public view. Every time we sneeze, there is a journalist to report
> it, claiming we caught the flu and are dying. There are leaks to the
> press in private lists. It is disastrous because it created an
> atmosphere of distrust, and many issues are no more discussed by fear of
> being repeated

Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't understand this fear of the press.
It's especially ironic considering that the Wikimedia Foundation is
dedicated to providing free access to knowledge, and the press is
heavily used in obtaining and sourcing that knowledge. Is the claim
that the press often gets it wrong, and that the general public is
stupid enough to believe whatever the press tells them, and won't
change its mind when presented with the truth? I might buy that (the
first part is pretty much incontrovertibly true), though I'd find it
at odds with the whole concept of Wikimedia projects (that
Wikimedians, on average, can find reliable sources, sort the wheat
from the chaff, and get to the truth).

If you sneeze, and a journalist reports you caught the flu and are
dying, what's the big problem? Doesn't going to great lengths to make
sure no one ever sees you sneeze again only serve to compound the
problem? You seem to suggest the problem is the atmosphere of
distrust, but I don't see how that problem was caused by the press.

The WMF has an odd relationship with the press. And this isn't a new
thing. I didn't notice it until recently, but when I look back I see
this fear of (or aversion to) the press has been there for years. And
it's not just you, Florence, though yours was the first one I noticed.
I see David Gerard has also made some particularly negative comments
about the press. And that's without really looking to see if it's
something systemic within the organization.

The WMF's relationship with the press would have been an interesting
thing to talk about with Brian Bergstein. I wish I hadn't missed that
web chat. Any chance you might invite him back?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

mbimmler at gmail

Apr 26, 2008, 9:51 AM

Post #2 of 14 (811 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Anthony <wikimail [at] inbox> wrote:

> I might buy that (the
> first part is pretty much incontrovertibly true), though I'd find it
> at odds with the whole concept of Wikimedia projects (that
> Wikimedians, on average, can find reliable sources, sort the wheat
> from the chaff, and get to the truth).
>
>
Well... the average Wikimedian does indeed (learn to) use reliable sources.
However,
a) there are many non-Wikimedians who might not be particularly used to this
idea
[.discussion of various sources is often only done in 'grammar schools' or
universities, so quite a few people might miss this interesting branch of
science...]

b) much more importantly, often the newspaper they read is considered a
reliable source by them.

To give you an example, there are two highly reputable newspapers in
German-speaking Switzerland, one of them being traditionally more left-wing,
the other more right-wing. I usually trust both of them when it comes down
to individual facts (although I sometimes differ with their
conclusions/comments).
However, if my view of Wikipedia was only shaped by these newspapers, it
would be quite distorted indeed as they have several times reported facts
that are...just wrong.
Now, I know quite a few bright and intelligent people who know how to "sort
the wheat from the chaff" and who wouldn't rely on the average tabloid for
any information. Though, if they read a sentence like "Wikipedia will
introduce stable versions, which means that from now on, a small group of
staff editors controls which of the edits will actually go live on the site"
in their trusted newspaper, they believe it. They won't spend half an hour
reading Wikipedia policy proposals on "Stable versions" unless they have to
write a paper about it. So, if I see them on the next morning, the first
thing I hear is "Ah, you Wikipedians finally gave up on this principle of
'everyone can edit', eh?"

Michael

--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler [at] gmail
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geo.plrd at yahoo

Apr 26, 2008, 7:32 PM

Post #3 of 14 (801 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

Thankfully we have Jay to create contacts at said media outlets.

----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler [at] gmail>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:51:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF and the press

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Anthony <wikimail [at] inbox> wrote:

> I might buy that (the
> first part is pretty much incontrovertibly true), though I'd find it
> at odds with the whole concept of Wikimedia projects (that
> Wikimedians, on average, can find reliable sources, sort the wheat
> from the chaff, and get to the truth).
>
>
Well... the average Wikimedian does indeed (learn to) use reliable sources.
However,
a) there are many non-Wikimedians who might not be particularly used to this
idea
[.discussion of various sources is often only done in 'grammar schools' or
universities, so quite a few people might miss this interesting branch of
science...]

b) much more importantly, often the newspaper they read is considered a
reliable source by them.

To give you an example, there are two highly reputable newspapers in
German-speaking Switzerland, one of them being traditionally more left-wing,
the other more right-wing. I usually trust both of them when it comes down
to individual facts (although I sometimes differ with their
conclusions/comments).
However, if my view of Wikipedia was only shaped by these newspapers, it
would be quite distorted indeed as they have several times reported facts
that are...just wrong.
Now, I know quite a few bright and intelligent people who know how to "sort
the wheat from the chaff" and who wouldn't rely on the average tabloid for
any information. Though, if they read a sentence like "Wikipedia will
introduce stable versions, which means that from now on, a small group of
staff editors controls which of the edits will actually go live on the site"
in their trusted newspaper, they believe it. They won't spend half an hour
reading Wikipedia policy proposals on "Stable versions" unless they have to
write a paper about it. So, if I see them on the next morning, the first
thing I hear is "Ah, you Wikipedians finally gave up on this principle of
'everyone can edit', eh?"

Michael

--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler [at] gmail
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Apr 26, 2008, 11:24 PM

Post #4 of 14 (793 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
>
>> b) public view. Every time we sneeze, there is a journalist to report
>> it, claiming we caught the flu and are dying. There are leaks to the
>> press in private lists. It is disastrous because it created an
>> atmosphere of distrust, and many issues are no more discussed by fear of
>> being repeated
>>
> Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't understand this fear of the press.
> It's especially ironic considering that the Wikimedia Foundation is
> dedicated to providing free access to knowledge, and the press is
> heavily used in obtaining and sourcing that knowledge. Is the claim
> that the press often gets it wrong, and that the general public is
> stupid enough to believe whatever the press tells them, and won't
> change its mind when presented with the truth? I might buy that (the
> first part is pretty much incontrovertibly true), though I'd find it
> at odds with the whole concept of Wikimedia projects (that
> Wikimedians, on average, can find reliable sources, sort the wheat
> from the chaff, and get to the truth).
>
> If you sneeze, and a journalist reports you caught the flu and are
> dying, what's the big problem? Doesn't going to great lengths to make
> sure no one ever sees you sneeze again only serve to compound the
> problem? You seem to suggest the problem is the atmosphere of
> distrust, but I don't see how that problem was caused by the press.
>
> The WMF has an odd relationship with the press. And this isn't a new
> thing. I didn't notice it until recently, but when I look back I see
> this fear of (or aversion to) the press has been there for years. And
> it's not just you, Florence, though yours was the first one I noticed.
> I see David Gerard has also made some particularly negative comments
> about the press. And that's without really looking to see if it's
> something systemic within the organization.
I'm inclined to agree with this analysis. Concern with the press is
about concern with image instead of identity. It puts looking good in a
higher place than being good. We've been looking over our shoulder ever
since the Seigenthaler incident. Ironically, going out of our way to
avoid such things only draws attention to their possibility, and may
even be counterproductive. An organization the size of WMF cannot
completely avoid these fumbles. Most of the time it's only one person
who has screwed up in a unique way (like EssJay), and yet we get all up
in knots establishing policies that will keep these one-off incidents
from ever happening again.

When we look to the press as the source for an atmosphere of distrust,
we completely miss the point. Leaks to the press are not initiated by
the press. That kind of problem isn't so easily dismissed. Trying to
solve these problems by being even more secretive, and being afraid to
engage in discussions will just make things worse. When the public
hears a lot of half-truth rumours they are only too willing to read them
negatively.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere9 at yahoo

Apr 27, 2008, 2:39 AM

Post #5 of 14 (793 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
>>
>>> b) public view. Every time we sneeze, there is a journalist to report
>>> it, claiming we caught the flu and are dying. There are leaks to the
>>> press in private lists. It is disastrous because it created an
>>> atmosphere of distrust, and many issues are no more discussed by fear of
>>> being repeated
>>>
>> Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't understand this fear of the press.
>> It's especially ironic considering that the Wikimedia Foundation is
>> dedicated to providing free access to knowledge, and the press is
>> heavily used in obtaining and sourcing that knowledge. Is the claim
>> that the press often gets it wrong, and that the general public is
>> stupid enough to believe whatever the press tells them, and won't
>> change its mind when presented with the truth? I might buy that (the
>> first part is pretty much incontrovertibly true), though I'd find it
>> at odds with the whole concept of Wikimedia projects (that
>> Wikimedians, on average, can find reliable sources, sort the wheat
>> from the chaff, and get to the truth).
>>
>> If you sneeze, and a journalist reports you caught the flu and are
>> dying, what's the big problem? Doesn't going to great lengths to make
>> sure no one ever sees you sneeze again only serve to compound the
>> problem? You seem to suggest the problem is the atmosphere of
>> distrust, but I don't see how that problem was caused by the press.
>>
>> The WMF has an odd relationship with the press. And this isn't a new
>> thing. I didn't notice it until recently, but when I look back I see
>> this fear of (or aversion to) the press has been there for years. And
>> it's not just you, Florence, though yours was the first one I noticed.
>> I see David Gerard has also made some particularly negative comments
>> about the press. And that's without really looking to see if it's
>> something systemic within the organization.
> I'm inclined to agree with this analysis. Concern with the press is
> about concern with image instead of identity. It puts looking good in a
> higher place than being good. We've been looking over our shoulder ever
> since the Seigenthaler incident. Ironically, going out of our way to
> avoid such things only draws attention to their possibility, and may
> even be counterproductive. An organization the size of WMF cannot
> completely avoid these fumbles. Most of the time it's only one person
> who has screwed up in a unique way (like EssJay), and yet we get all up
> in knots establishing policies that will keep these one-off incidents
> from ever happening again.
>
> When we look to the press as the source for an atmosphere of distrust,
> we completely miss the point. Leaks to the press are not initiated by
> the press. That kind of problem isn't so easily dismissed. Trying to
> solve these problems by being even more secretive, and being afraid to
> engage in discussions will just make things worse. When the public
> hears a lot of half-truth rumours they are only too willing to read them
> negatively.
>
> Ec

I certainly do not look at the press as the source for an atmosphere of
distrust, and this is not the issue.
The issue is that the press makes a big mountain of every little
disagreement shared between us. These big mountains reflect badly on
donors, in particular big donors, who dislike public controversies. So,
the issue is not so much fear of the press itself, but fear of the
consequences it may have on our ability to fundraise, which is an
essential consideration for survival of the websites.

As such, it is recommanded that we always show a public face of full
agreement. Discussions, sometimes heated, could have been preserved on
private lists and a common front presented to the press.

Unfortunately, due to leaks initiated by participants themselves, the
privacy is not maintained, and set up an atmosphere of suspicion.

If we must maintain a common voice, the main question left is "who is in
control of the information distributed", and what will be the channels
of distribution of the information. In an internet area, the one who has
control over the information distributed or not distributed, has in
reality control of the organization. That's basic strategy.

There are certainly mainy good arguments for trying to solve
disagreement with discretion. However, collateral damages are
* decrease of discussion with a large audience (an issue that is real;
that's for example decrease of discussions on key issues on this very list)
* power struggle over communication channels (who says what to who)

ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikimail at inbox

Apr 27, 2008, 7:02 AM

Post #6 of 14 (790 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
> If we must maintain a common voice, the main question left is "who is in
> control of the information distributed", and what will be the channels
> of distribution of the information. In an internet area, the one who has
> control over the information distributed or not distributed, has in
> reality control of the organization. That's basic strategy.
>
It's unclear to me exactly what you're trying to say, but when you put
it that way, isn't it obvious that maintaining a common voice is a bad
idea? The leaks to the press, then, are not disastrous, but the only
hope for salvation.

In any case, the explanation that the press is considered bad because
the Foundation seeks to maintain a common voice is a good one. In a
private response someone said to me that the Foundation dislikes the
press because the Foundation is doing inappropriate things (my
paraphrase). My response was that even if *some individuals* in the
Foundation are doing inappropriate things, it is still in the best
interests of the Foundation *as a whole* to reveal those things, so
that it is much more likely that similar things don't happen again.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere9 at yahoo

Apr 27, 2008, 7:14 AM

Post #7 of 14 (793 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
>> If we must maintain a common voice, the main question left is "who is in
>> control of the information distributed", and what will be the channels
>> of distribution of the information. In an internet area, the one who has
>> control over the information distributed or not distributed, has in
>> reality control of the organization. That's basic strategy.
>>
> It's unclear to me exactly what you're trying to say, but when you put
> it that way, isn't it obvious that maintaining a common voice is a bad
> idea? The leaks to the press, then, are not disastrous, but the only
> hope for salvation.
>
> In any case, the explanation that the press is considered bad because
> the Foundation seeks to maintain a common voice is a good one. In a
> private response someone said to me that the Foundation dislikes the
> press because the Foundation is doing inappropriate things (my
> paraphrase). My response was that even if *some individuals* in the
> Foundation are doing inappropriate things, it is still in the best
> interests of the Foundation *as a whole* to reveal those things, so
> that it is much more likely that similar things don't happen again.

As far as I can say, no individuals are doing inappropriate things in
the Foundation, so there is nothing to reveal.
The problem is that, in our organization, just as in any organization,
there are sometimes some disagreements in the way things are run (eg,
Lodewijk this morning). These disagreements are normal. And the
appropriate way to help solve these disagreements is by talking through
them.
What is bad is to make too much noise around each disagreement, putting
too much importance in them, or inventing arguments, inventing other
stories to further fuel the disagreements.

Ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cimonavaro at gmail

Apr 27, 2008, 7:30 AM

Post #8 of 14 (788 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
>>
>>> If we must maintain a common voice, the main question left is "who is in
>>> control of the information distributed", and what will be the channels
>>> of distribution of the information. In an internet area, the one who has
>>> control over the information distributed or not distributed, has in
>>> reality control of the organization. That's basic strategy.
>>>
>>>
>> It's unclear to me exactly what you're trying to say, but when you put
>> it that way, isn't it obvious that maintaining a common voice is a bad
>> idea? The leaks to the press, then, are not disastrous, but the only
>> hope for salvation.
>>
>> In any case, the explanation that the press is considered bad because
>> the Foundation seeks to maintain a common voice is a good one. In a
>> private response someone said to me that the Foundation dislikes the
>> press because the Foundation is doing inappropriate things (my
>> paraphrase). My response was that even if *some individuals* in the
>> Foundation are doing inappropriate things, it is still in the best
>> interests of the Foundation *as a whole* to reveal those things, so
>> that it is much more likely that similar things don't happen again.
>>
>
> As far as I can say, no individuals are doing inappropriate things in
> the Foundation, so there is nothing to reveal.
> The problem is that, in our organization, just as in any organization,
> there are sometimes some disagreements in the way things are run (eg,
> Lodewijk this morning). These disagreements are normal. And the
> appropriate way to help solve these disagreements is by talking through
> them.
> What is bad is to make too much noise around each disagreement, putting
> too much importance in them, or inventing arguments, inventing other
> stories to further fuel the disagreements.
>

I think this is precisely right. And though I clearly disagree
with the strong feelings Lodewijk expressed, I do agree (as
you appear to agree too), that a lot more communication is
what is needed here. We really do need to know what the
thinking of the various individuals on the board was regarding
the question of the board expansion, restructuring and the
place of other conceivable actors and institutions existing
and potential. For me this is not needed because there is
great reason for worry about the facts and opinions themselves,
but because there is a (for me) great amount of not understanding
it at all. I expect it can be explained, but the fact that it is currently
not explained at all, is in itself a not good thing, even though I trust
when it is explained, there is good reasoning behind it.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

meta.sj at gmail

Apr 27, 2008, 7:33 AM

Post #9 of 14 (788 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo>
wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Anthony wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> b) public view. Every time we sneeze, there is a journalist to report
> >>> it, claiming we caught the flu and are dying. There are leaks to the
> >>> press in private lists. It is disastrous because it created an
> >>> atmosphere of distrust, and many issues are no more discussed by fear
> of
> >>> being repeated
> >>>
> >> Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't understand this fear of the press.
> >> It's especially ironic considering that the Wikimedia Foundation is
> >> dedicated to providing free access to knowledge, and the press is
> >> heavily used in obtaining and sourcing that knowledge. Is the claim
> >> that the press often gets it wrong, and that the general public is
> >> stupid enough to believe whatever the press tells them, and won't
> >> change its mind when presented with the truth? I might buy that (the
> >> first part is pretty much incontrovertibly true), though I'd find it
> >> at odds with the whole concept of Wikimedia projects (that
> >> Wikimedians, on average, can find reliable sources, sort the wheat
> >> from the chaff, and get to the truth).
>

It's one of those red-letter days when I am 100% in agreement with Anthony
:)

>
> > I'm inclined to agree with this analysis. Concern with the press is
> > about concern with image instead of identity. It puts looking good in a
> > higher place than being good. We've been looking over our shoulder ever
> > since the Seigenthaler incident.
>

And I often find that this reflexive fear of the press leads the projects to
do the wrong thing in order to somehow 'pacify' the press. Many press
events are neither interesting nor of significant impact to a project with
the scope and importance of Wikipedia.

> > Ironically, going out of our way to
> > avoid such things only draws attention to their possibility, and may
> > even be counterproductive. An organization the size of WMF cannot
> > completely avoid these fumbles. Most of the time it's only one person
> > who has screwed up in a unique way (like EssJay), a
>

In many cases I do see reacting rather than ignoring the press (when they
get things very wrong) as counterproductive. The Essjay case was a specific
example where we could have highlighted the strength and robustness of
Wikipedia -- saying when asked, "look, we are robust to this kind of
spoofing <examples>, which is why we can afford not to care about
credentials". Instead people went out of their way to say things like
"we're looking into ways to make sure this doesn't happen again," and to
suggest that the spoofed credentials in question actually hurt the projects,
which was itself deceptive and didn't do anyone any good (and certainly
didn't improve or minimize reaction in the press).

> > and yet we get all up
> > in knots establishing policies that will keep these one-off incidents
> > from ever happening again.
>

New users still cannot create new pages on en:wp, which is a real pity.
While some people feel responsible for demanding one-off policies, I don't
see that anyone feeling responsible for revisiting such one-off policies
with cooler heads (and statistics!) once they have become taken for granted.

Florence writes:

> I certainly do not look at the press as the source for an atmosphere of
> distrust, and this is not the issue.
> The issue is that the press makes a big mountain of every little
> disagreement shared between us. These big mountains reflect badly on
> donors, in particular big donors, who dislike public controversies. So,
> the issue is not so much fear of the press itself, but fear of the
> consequences it may have on our ability to fundraise, which is an
> essential consideration for survival of the websites.
>

Can you please provide a few examlpes of controversies stemming from
internal disagreements that reflected poorly on a big donor or potential
donor?

I would think that "presenting internal disagreements at face value" and
"the foundation's ability to fundraise" are fairly independent.

>
> As such, it is recommanded that we always show a public face of full
> agreement. Discussions, sometimes heated, could have been preserved on
> private lists and a common front presented to the press.
>

Hopefully you do not mean /all/ heated discussions. Are you talking about
discussions about donors themselves??

>
> If we must maintain a common voice, the main question left is "who is in
> control of the information distributed", and what will be the channels
> of distribution of the information. In an internet area, the one who has
> control over the information distributed or not distributed, has in
> reality control of the organization. That's basic strategy.
>

This line of reasoning is starting to sound bad for the foundation /and/ the
communities in the long term.

>
> There are certainly mainy good arguments for trying to solve
> disagreement with discretion. However, collateral damages are
> * decrease of discussion with a large audience (an issue that is real;
> that's for example decrease of discussions on key issues on this very
> list)
> * power struggle over communication channels (who says what to who)
>

for not only these reasons. beyond lessened discussion and power struggles,
hiding disagreement preempts the engagement of the community on difficult
issues. Issues that haven't found a good resolution within a small-group
discussion are often ones that benefit from wider engagement; similarly, one
of the functions of a heterogenous board with community representation is to
deal effectively with uncontroversial issues, while letting interested
parties know about those that are controversial, and inviting input on
issues that might be decided with undue weight given to one such party or
another.

More specifically, people seem to be excited these days by the prospect of
big donors. A big donor who has occasional personal meetings with board
members will naturally have more influence on board decision making than the
community will, ifthe issue cannot be discussed with the commnity at
large... naturally in this case any public presentation of concern or
disagreement would endanger offending a big donor.

I can't imagine a world in which every open community group needs to
organize an action commitee that includes at least one person who can be
privy to internal Wikimedia disagreements and conversation, simply to
advocate for their point of view; but that seems to be in the air.

SJ

> ant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

meta.sj at gmail

Apr 27, 2008, 7:45 AM

Post #10 of 14 (788 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo>
wrote:

> The problem is that, in our organization, just as in any organization,
> there are sometimes some disagreements in the way things are run (eg,
> Lodewijk this morning). These disagreements are normal. And the
> appropriate way to help solve these disagreements is by talking through
> them.
> What is bad is to make too much noise around each disagreement, putting
> too much importance in them, or inventing arguments, inventing other
> stories to further fuel the disagreements.
>

The easiest way not to make too much noise around these regular
disagreements is not to hide them, as a general rule; so that they are not
special news. (also, developing a thick skin to uninteresting taunts and
articles from tabloid authors who will make a big deal out of anything).

Hiding all disagreements makes even the simple and uninteresting ones seem
like news when public. It also promotes a chilling effect on speaking
publicly and creates a caste of people who are afraid to discuss the
organization in any detail with those outside that caste. Rather than
having a few rare incidents to avoid discussing publicly, it imposes a large
burden on those in the know.

Of course working towards consensus in small groups is an excellent practice
for discussion in general; great as a style guideline for good membership in
a collaborative decision-making body. Not so great as a law that binds
people even when consensus cannot be reached and they have dissenting
opinions to share with others.

The worst outcome would be stifling dissenting opinions from people who have
thought long and hard about a situation. Pretending uniformity of opinion,
and censuring anyone who dares state disagreements publicly, would be
harmful.

Many of the world's major organizations provide ways for their members to
convey their opinions, whatever they may be, which often disagree violently
with majority decisions. Wikipedia should aspire to no less, and could do
much better (there are major organizations and governing bodies which are
almost completely transparent about their slates, debates, and votes,
including for example disagreements and the full text of resolutions to be
discussed).

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

birgitte_sb at yahoo

Apr 27, 2008, 11:26 AM

Post #11 of 14 (785 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:

> From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF and the press
> To: foundation-l [at] lists
> Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 9:14 AM
> Anthony wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Florence Devouard
> <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
> >> If we must maintain a common voice, the main
> question left is "who is in
> >> control of the information distributed", and
> what will be the channels
> >> of distribution of the information. In an
> internet area, the one who has
> >> control over the information distributed or not
> distributed, has in
> >> reality control of the organization. That's
> basic strategy.
> >>
> > It's unclear to me exactly what you're trying
> to say, but when you put
> > it that way, isn't it obvious that maintaining a
> common voice is a bad
> > idea? The leaks to the press, then, are not
> disastrous, but the only
> > hope for salvation.
> >
> > In any case, the explanation that the press is
> considered bad because
> > the Foundation seeks to maintain a common voice is a
> good one. In a
> > private response someone said to me that the
> Foundation dislikes the
> > press because the Foundation is doing inappropriate
> things (my
> > paraphrase). My response was that even if *some
> individuals* in the
> > Foundation are doing inappropriate things, it is still
> in the best
> > interests of the Foundation *as a whole* to reveal
> those things, so
> > that it is much more likely that similar things
> don't happen again.
>
> As far as I can say, no individuals are doing inappropriate
> things in
> the Foundation, so there is nothing to reveal.
> The problem is that, in our organization, just as in any
> organization,
> there are sometimes some disagreements in the way things
> are run (eg,
> Lodewijk this morning). These disagreements are normal. And
> the
> appropriate way to help solve these disagreements is by
> talking through
> them.
> What is bad is to make too much noise around each
> disagreement, putting
> too much importance in them, or inventing arguments,
> inventing other
> stories to further fuel the disagreements.
>
> Ant

The way to lower the noise is for the disagreements to be less unexpected, which requires being more upfront about where individuals opinions are from the beginning before it becomes a big deal. In all I agree with Anthony that "we must maintain a common voice" is a false premise. The problem is not the press it is the concept of a common voice. As long as the board attempts to maintain one common voice these problems will continue.

First of all I think the premise that a common voice is required is inherently questionable. Secondly, even if is good for other organizations, it isn't working for WMF. It hasn't worked and, since the line has already been crossed, leaks will certainly continue. It is past time the concept was abandoned.

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Apr 27, 2008, 11:47 AM

Post #12 of 14 (786 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

Hoi,
There are two opposing forces, there are those that want to present a
positive face to the WMF and there are those who consider that everything
should be in the open and everything is permitted to be said. The argument
that negative publications impact the ability to raise funds is a powerful
one. There have been people that have indicated never to donate to the WMF
again. When I talk with people from organisations about the WMF, I am often
asked about the latest reason why Wikipedia / the WMF is in imminent danger
of collapse... I get used to it.

With the continuous wrangling the press and the public will get also used to
the notion that ours is a lively community. The good news is that they may
not always have their fact straight, they at least know how to spell
Wikipedia Foundation :)

There have been moves to make the WMF more open in its reporting about what
it is doing and the reasons why. Much of what is reported on is talked to
death and the net effect is not great or more precisely cannot be deduced.
Important to note is that it is very much reporting that is happening, I am
personally convinced that the general mood of the opinions is understood by
both the board of trustees and by the organisation.

When people are of the opinion that decisions have to be shared/vetted by
the "community", they ask for power / influence, this comes at the cost of
making the functioning of the foundation more diffucult. By devolving power
to the chapters by including them prominently in the board of trustees, it
is clear that the discussions about foundation policy are targeted to be
done on a country level. From an organisational point of view I can
understand this experiment as it gives additional relevance to the chapters

It is one powerful argument for the Americans to get their house in order
and finally have their own chapter.

Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb [at] yahoo> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/27/08, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
>
> > From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF and the press
> > To: foundation-l [at] lists
> > Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 9:14 AM
> > Anthony wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Florence Devouard
> > <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
> > >> If we must maintain a common voice, the main
> > question left is "who is in
> > >> control of the information distributed", and
> > what will be the channels
> > >> of distribution of the information. In an
> > internet area, the one who has
> > >> control over the information distributed or not
> > distributed, has in
> > >> reality control of the organization. That's
> > basic strategy.
> > >>
> > > It's unclear to me exactly what you're trying
> > to say, but when you put
> > > it that way, isn't it obvious that maintaining a
> > common voice is a bad
> > > idea? The leaks to the press, then, are not
> > disastrous, but the only
> > > hope for salvation.
> > >
> > > In any case, the explanation that the press is
> > considered bad because
> > > the Foundation seeks to maintain a common voice is a
> > good one. In a
> > > private response someone said to me that the
> > Foundation dislikes the
> > > press because the Foundation is doing inappropriate
> > things (my
> > > paraphrase). My response was that even if *some
> > individuals* in the
> > > Foundation are doing inappropriate things, it is still
> > in the best
> > > interests of the Foundation *as a whole* to reveal
> > those things, so
> > > that it is much more likely that similar things
> > don't happen again.
> >
> > As far as I can say, no individuals are doing inappropriate
> > things in
> > the Foundation, so there is nothing to reveal.
> > The problem is that, in our organization, just as in any
> > organization,
> > there are sometimes some disagreements in the way things
> > are run (eg,
> > Lodewijk this morning). These disagreements are normal. And
> > the
> > appropriate way to help solve these disagreements is by
> > talking through
> > them.
> > What is bad is to make too much noise around each
> > disagreement, putting
> > too much importance in them, or inventing arguments,
> > inventing other
> > stories to further fuel the disagreements.
> >
> > Ant
>
> The way to lower the noise is for the disagreements to be less unexpected,
> which requires being more upfront about where individuals opinions are from
> the beginning before it becomes a big deal. In all I agree with Anthony
> that "we must maintain a common voice" is a false premise. The problem is
> not the press it is the concept of a common voice. As long as the board
> attempts to maintain one common voice these problems will continue.
>
> First of all I think the premise that a common voice is required is
> inherently questionable. Secondly, even if is good for other organizations,
> it isn't working for WMF. It hasn't worked and, since the line has already
> been crossed, leaks will certainly continue. It is past time the concept
> was abandoned.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

birgitte_sb at yahoo

Apr 27, 2008, 11:53 AM

Post #13 of 14 (803 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:

> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF and the press
> To: birgitte_sb [at] yahoo, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 1:47 PM
> Hoi,
> There are two opposing forces, there are those that want to
> present a
> positive face to the WMF and there are those who consider
> that everything
> should be in the open and everything is permitted to be
> said. The argument
> that negative publications impact the ability to raise
> funds is a powerful
> one. There have been people that have indicated never to
> donate to the WMF
> again. When I talk with people from organisations about the
> WMF, I am often
> asked about the latest reason why Wikipedia / the WMF is in
> imminent danger
> of collapse... I get used to it.

If those are really the only two opposing forces you must be able to see that one will always be able to ensure the other fails even if it does not manage to completely succeed itself. It is logically impossible for "present a positive face to WMF" to prevail over "everything should be open". So why are people still fighting a lost cause?

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Apr 27, 2008, 12:08 PM

Post #14 of 14 (788 views)
Permalink

Re: WMF and the press [In reply to]

Hoi,
I do not think it is necessarily a lost cause, far from it. They are two
opposite forces shifting slightly from one side to the other and as we
mature as an organisation things will become more stable.

In my opinion, the relevance of what happens in the Foundation is
exaggerated, true relevance is in what happens in the projects. I find it
thrilling that people are considering a WikiRadio (I put it on my follow
list on Meta). It is important because when it happens it does because of
the initiative of the people that want to see it happen. It is similar to
the Wikipedia Weekly and the Not the Wikipedia Weekly, both are worth
attention :)

It is sad that the minutes are not available of the board meeting yet, it
would not surprise me when they make it even more clear that a council to
deal with the projects is an experiment that is allowed to happen. I believe
that if Effeietsanders and his team want a council they can start one, and
when they add value, they will get a lot of the influence they asked for. It
will just not come in the format they hoped it would be
Thanks,
Gerard

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb [at] yahoo> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/27/08, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF and the press
> > To: birgitte_sb [at] yahoo, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
> foundation-l [at] lists>
> > Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 1:47 PM
> > Hoi,
> > There are two opposing forces, there are those that want to
> > present a
> > positive face to the WMF and there are those who consider
> > that everything
> > should be in the open and everything is permitted to be
> > said. The argument
> > that negative publications impact the ability to raise
> > funds is a powerful
> > one. There have been people that have indicated never to
> > donate to the WMF
> > again. When I talk with people from organisations about the
> > WMF, I am often
> > asked about the latest reason why Wikipedia / the WMF is in
> > imminent danger
> > of collapse... I get used to it.
>
> If those are really the only two opposing forces you must be able to see
> that one will always be able to ensure the other fails even if it does not
> manage to completely succeed itself. It is logically impossible for
> "present a positive face to WMF" to prevail over "everything should be
> open". So why are people still fighting a lost cause?
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads