WMF and Community Changes Wishlist

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:29 pm

If you were emperor of Wikipedia for a day, what changes would you make to how Wikipedia is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia Community?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:37 pm

From the other thread...

Things I'd like to see changed with wikipedia (or, alternatively, If Vigilant were king for a day) :
* annual reaffirmation of all advanced permissions (admin, bcrat, steward, etc)
* opt-out BLP policy
* fiercely aggressive child protection policy
* article accuracy over consensus
* reformation of the WMF bylaws to require all board members to stand for election every two years
* a WPCOMMONS:THIS_ISNT_YOUR_PORN_COLLECTION policy
* image filter
* WMF employees hired with arbitration experience to replace AN/ANI/ARBCOM and the other drama boards
* complete overhaul of WMF software engineering. Stop wasting the donor's money on shit nobody wants to satisfy your ego, Erik/James
* raise average pay to SF Bay averages or above and hire GOOD people, not friends of the community
* remove Jimbo Wales from any position of authority

That's enough for the first day.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:51 pm

That's enough for the first day.

I'm with Mr. V. Any one of those things would be great, and a couple of them may even be within Ms. Tretikov's power to achieve.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue May 06, 2014 12:20 am

Although I don't completely agree with all of them I generally agree with most of what Vigilant presents and here are a couple more:
* Get back to a state where the admin tools are no big deal again. They should be easy to get and easy to take away if abused. Not nearly impossible to get and even harder to take away.
* start building back a culture of trust in the project instead of the currently expanding culture of distrust
* Address the article ownership issues displayed by the WikiProjects. One WikiProject should not be able to dictate that no one in their scope can have an Infobox, Portal, not be tagged for another project, etc.
* Redesign the hideous main page.
* Establish a couple paid staffers to police the admins and ensure they are following the rules and not exempting themselves from it
* Collaborate with the community on developing changes, not cutting them out and forcing it down their throats

I'll let you stew on those for now. I'll drop some more later.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue May 06, 2014 12:22 am

wllm wrote:If you were emperor of Wikipedia for a day, what changes would you make to how Wikipedia is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia Community?

Off the top of my head:

1. Make content quality the first priority.

Presently, the Foundation's metrics of success are:

– Number of editors
– Number of edits
– Number of articles
– Number of page views

No one at the Wikimedia Foundation measures quality, and they admit to not having figured out a way to do it. If you are trying to provide an educational resource, it's the first thing you should be concerned about. Work with whoever has the expertise. Fund research into content quality problems and proactively publicise the results.

2. Institute a biography opt-out for people of marginal notability (e.g. people not included in any other encyclopedia).

3. End anonymous editing of biographies of living people (I could imagine some exceptions, e.g. biographies of dictators, but it should not be general practice) and company articles.

4. Implement Pending Changes for biographies of living people and company articles (Pending Changes functionality is already implemented across the board, i.e. for all articles, in many non-English Wikipedia projects).

5. Watch out for activists and revenge editors who trash biographies and company articles, and throw them out if they don't desist.

6. Be honest about your financial status. The yellow fundraising banner makes people think Wikipedia is about to go off-line for lack of money, when in fact, the Foundation has ten times as much money as it did 5 or 6 years ago.

7. Stop the gravy trains and waste of donors' money in the chapters. (Sue Gardner herself recognised that problem.)

8. Make project admins subject to reconfirmation at least every two years.

9. Ensure that readers can tell whether or not an article on a company or organisation has been edited by principals, employees or agents of that organisation. (This is actually a legal requirement in many countries.)

10. Be open and honest about the amount of adult material on Wikimedia projects, allow people to filter it if they want to, and comply with 18 USC 2257 record-keeping requirements.

Freddy · Unread post by **Freddy** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:04 am

wllm wrote:If you were emperor of Wikipedia for a day, what changes would you make to how Wikipedia is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia Community?

One thing: Eliminate the drama boards (including ARBCOM) and replace them with an effective solution. With those gone we can start improving from there.

But in all honesty, I shudder at the thought of giving all of the power to one person.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:11 am

I'll add these:
* Deeply limit the ability of any single person to publish content by requiring prepublication review of all article content submissions by at least one other editor.
* Disband the UK Wikimedia chapter as they've done nothing but generate scandal after scandal. Look very closely at the other chapters to identify what purpose they serve, and establish reasonable governance over chapters.
* Discontinue the Wikipedian-in-Residence program. This program serves no useful purpose for either Wikimedia or the organizations that host Wikipedians in Residence, but create countless opportunities to embarrass both the Foundation and the hosts. The only beneficiary of the Wikipedian in Residence program are the favored Wikipedians who get the sinecure positions.
* Establish editorial boards with the authority to resolve content and content-related disputes.
* Establish practical workflow mechanisms and incentives to ensure that problems related to content do not languish indefinitely.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:16 am

Things are looking pretty good from where I sit. Don't change a thing.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:38 am

mac wrote:Things are looking pretty good from where I sit. Don't change a thing.

Yer making me smile, Mac.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:18 am

wllm wrote:If you were emperor of Wikipedia for a day, what changes would you make to how Wikipedia is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia Community?

Wikipedia's problems are broad and systemic and range across its culture, bureaucracy and its bloated rules. In the end, though, it needs to be judged against the goals of the project, where it's failing to produce quality content that is durable. The articles are only as good as the last nutcase on the internet to edit it. A lot of the articles are otherwise so bad they're actually improved by internet nutcases. People who are capable of creating good content invariable ask themselves 'what's the point'? And many leave, while others wouldn't touch it to begin with. The WMF has done basically nothing on this, arguably the project's most important duty. I keep an eye on articles I wrote 9 years ago -- mainstream encyclopedic topics that get ten's of thousands of page views per month. Most have deteriorated.

It would take more than a day, but If I were emperor I'd start a competitive fork-- call it an experiment. Get universities, Google and Wikipedia's best writers on board. It would focus on quality content, vetting and revisions, and recruiting good editors. It would have zero patience for crybabies who can't write. It would have to attract a critical mass of editors with a culture aligned with the goals of the project. I don't think anyone really knows for sure how to do that so it would take a lot of experimentation. If successful, it would surpass Wikipedia as the WMF's main project.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:47 am

Personally I don't think diverting more resources into yet another project is a good solution. IMO there are too many zero return projects already. Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiversity and Wikivoyage are all a waste of perfectly good resources IMO and should be reviewed and a serious case should be made about why we need these. The more resources we waste on deadend projects like these 4 I just mentioned and forks, the more of a distraction from the main project.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:59 am

You guys are throwing out a lot of good suggestions here. Can you please break them up and put them in a list? A list format would make it easier for Lila to consider each suggestion one by one. If it's a big systemic change, I suggest just summing it up at a very high level. We can drill down later.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue May 06, 2014 3:15 am

wllm wrote:You guys are throwing out a lot of good suggestions here. Can you please break them up and put them in a list? A list format would make it easier for Lila to consider each suggestion one by one. If it's a big systemic change, I suggest just summing it up at a very high level. We can drill down later.

Why not have Lila come here and read them for herself?
She could ask us direct questions and get direct answers.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue May 06, 2014 3:26 am

Instigate a paid expert review program for topics covered by scholarship - starting with en.Wikipedia's medical content. Engage the scholarly societies representing the different specialties - get them to manage the review process including reviewer selection. Funding should come from any of the charities dedicated to public medical education (ask B&M Gates). Once an article has been reviewed for accuracy by experts, place a prominent clickable badge at the top, linking to the reviewed version.

The top result for most search engine medical queries should be reliable.

This is a change Lila can implement. The only permission she'll need from the editor community is for the clickable badge at the top of the article, and if the review process is of the highest standard and independent, I'm sure that will be forthcoming.

There's more to this, of course. But that's it in a nutshell.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue May 06, 2014 3:37 am

wllm wrote:If you were emperor of Wikipedia for a day, what changes would you make to how Wikipedia is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia Community?

If I were an emperor of Wikipedia, I would have changed it the way Mikhail Gorbachev changed the Soviet Union. Right now Wikipedia regime is working pretty much as regimes in the worst of totalitarian countries.
Wikipedia needs Glasnost (openness and transparency) and Perestroika as was suggested by Vigilant and HRIP7.
I would have also unblocked all content contributors. Blocks are useless, and harmful not only for blocked people but for wikipedia as well.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue May 06, 2014 3:44 am

I agree. Blocks only keep out the ones who want to be kept out. Its not very hard to dodge them and it actually reduces transparency because all they have to do is wait a couple months and create a new account, in secret, and start over.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Tue May 06, 2014 5:49 am

Vigilant wrote:
wllm wrote:You guys are throwing out a lot of good suggestions here. Can you please break them up and put them in a list? A list format would make it easier for Lila to consider each suggestion one by one. If it's a big systemic change, I suggest just summing it up at a very high level. We can drill down later.
Why not have Lila come here and read them for herself?
She could ask us direct questions and get direct answers.

I believe she was considering introducing herself on the announcement, but she found some of the comments about her somewhat less than constructive. She wasn't fazed at all, but she also wasn't about to hop in to that hot mess. You guys should really consider the impact of trash talk on everyone in this forum. That was one huge loss, but you still have me to verbally abuse.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue May 06, 2014 5:55 am

wllm wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
wllm wrote:You guys are throwing out a lot of good suggestions here. Can you please break them up and put them in a list? A list format would make it easier for Lila to consider each suggestion one by one. If it's a big systemic change, I suggest just summing it up at a very high level. We can drill down later.
Why not have Lila come here and read them for herself?
She could ask us direct questions and get direct answers.
I believe she was considering introducing herself on the announcement, but she found some of the comments about her somewhat less than constructive. She wasn't fazed at all, but she also wasn't about to hop in to that hot mess. You guys should really consider the impact of trash talk on everyone in this forum. That was one huge loss, but you still have me to verbally abuse.

If it makes her feel better, I had the same reaction to that thread.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue May 06, 2014 6:13 am

wllm wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
wllm wrote:You guys are throwing out a lot of good suggestions here. Can you please break them up and put them in a list? A list format would make it easier for Lila to consider each suggestion one by one. If it's a big systemic change, I suggest just summing it up at a very high level. We can drill down later.
Why not have Lila come here and read them for herself?
She could ask us direct questions and get direct answers.
I believe she was considering introducing herself on the announcement, but she found some of the comments about her somewhat less than constructive. She wasn't fazed at all, but she also wasn't about to hop in to that hot mess. You guys should really consider the impact of trash talk on everyone in this forum. That was one huge loss, but you still have me to verbally abuse.

Huh? were we joking about puncturing someone's throat with a pen and looking into their eyes as they die? Oh, wait, never mind, that was a WMF employee somewhere else.

As much as we'd like her participation, someone in that position doesn't have much to gain posting here, sorry to say, but it's true. She won't be able to honestly comment on the undercurrents that drive the WMF, and any evasiveness will set off the klaxons. That being said, she has a lot to gain reading here.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Tue May 06, 2014 6:43 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:As much as we'd like her participation, someone in that position doesn't have much to gain posting here, sorry to say, but it's true. She won't be able to honestly comment on the undercurrents that drive the WMF, and any evasiveness will set off the klaxons. That being said, she has a lot to gain reading here.

Well, for one, she could show everyone that they are talking about- and to- a real person.

Secondly, trash talk doesn't encourage anyone to listen to what one has to say. Lila isn't going to waste her time reading a bunch of snarky comments that just make it harder for her to cut through the drama. Simply put, no one is going to take anything said in a thread that has a lot of trash talk in it seriously.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:10 am

wllm wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:As much as we'd like her participation, someone in that position doesn't have much to gain posting here, sorry to say, but it's true. She won't be able to honestly comment on the undercurrents that drive the WMF, and any evasiveness will set off the klaxons. That being said, she has a lot to gain reading here.
Well, for one, she could show everyone that they are talking about- and to- a real person.

Secondly, trash talk doesn't encourage anyone to listen to what one has to say. Lila isn't going to waste her time reading a bunch of snarky comments that just make it harder for her to cut through the drama. Simply put, no one is going to take anything said in a thread that has a lot of trash talk in it seriously.

I'm not sure that's true. Drama and wit can be a potent fuel for discussion and interaction. There was another Wikipedia criticism forum created by a Wikipedia insider, some organ player from Minneapolis, I forget his name. It was secco and died a quick death. Anyone remember that?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:17 am

wllm wrote:Secondly, trash talk doesn't encourage anyone to listen to what one has to say. Lila isn't going to waste her time reading a bunch of snarky comments that just make it harder for her to cut through the drama. Simply put, no one is going to take anything said in a thread that has a lot of trash talk in it seriously.

Y'know, you've been saying this quite a bit, and aside from the fact that the amount of so-called "trash talk" has been fairly minimal, it's not even true. I guess there are a few people out there - say, the elderly, Mormons, and even the occasional Wikipedian - who will automatically tune out at the first snarky comment or four-letter word, but this is the internet, and people like to be amused, not lectured to. And they don't particularly care about having their delicate sensibilities offended, because this is 2014 and hardly anybody has delicate sensibilities anymore.

And I'll tell you something else: Wikipedia basically exists for drama. It feeds off it, it lives off it. Drama is the air that it breathes. The "encyclopedia" is simply a means to an end, and that end is drama. As our own Kelly Martin once (somewhat famously) said, "Nothing reduces drama in the long term at Wikipedia; Wikipedia is constructed so as to maximize drama. The Wikipedia system interprets the absence of drama as damage and routes around it." It's hard enough trying to get them to read the stuff we post here even with the "drama" - without it, they wouldn't even know we existed.

So trust me - if Ms. Tretikov isn't good at, or at least willing to spend some time at, cutting through drama to figure out what's really going on, she's not going to enjoy the next year or two much at all.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:19 am

TungstenCarbide wrote: I'm not sure that's true. Drama and wit can be a potent fuel for discussion. There was another Wikipedia Criticism forum created by an insider, some organ player, I forget his name. It was secco and died a quick death. Anyone remember that?

Typically wildly off-topic discussion, like tattoos.

I'm just saying everyone should be considerate of the people in this forum who are trying to address their issues with Wikimedia and want to be heard. It's not a matter of censorship; it's a matter of civility. Is it so hard to be civil?

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:27 am

wllm wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote: I'm not sure that's true. Drama and wit can be a potent fuel for discussion. There was another Wikipedia Criticism forum created by an insider, some organ player, I forget his name. It was secco and died a quick death. Anyone remember that?
Typically wildly off-topic discussion, like tattoos.

I'm just saying everyone should be considerate of the people in this forum who are trying to address their issues with Wikimedia and want to be heard. It's not a matter of censorship; it's a matter of civility. Is it so hard to be civil?

Oh Paleeze, that was an inside joke intended to give people a chuckle. A while back I called Alison a dumbass for getting tattooed. We've been sniping at each other for years-- Ná logh, dearmad riamh

Still, there's some truth to the comment and it resonated, judging by the response.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:27 am

wllm wrote:Is it so hard to be civil?

Probably, if you've just been indef-banned by some anonymous teenage admin over a stupid technicality or misinterpretation of a self-contradictory rule, after you've put in five years and tens of thousands of edits.

Not that I would know personally, mind you. You just have to remember that on Wikipedia, civility is an artificial veneer, not a bedrock value, and the rules regarding same are often used as a cudgel rather than a way to get people to calm down and be nice to each other.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:28 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:Still, there's some truth to the comment and it resonated, judging by the response.

I'm still trying to figure out what "secco" means in this context...?

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:29 am

Midsize Jake wrote: Not that I would know personally, mind you. You just have to remember that on Wikipedia, civility is an artificial veneer, not a bedrock value, and the rules regarding same are often used as a cudgel rather than a way to get people to calm down and be nice to each other.

But we're not on Wikipedia right now.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:31 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:Still, there's some truth to the comment and it resonated, judging by the response.
I'm still trying to figure out what "secco" means in this context...?

"dry"

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:48 am

wllm wrote:But we're not on Wikipedia right now.

You know what I meant. When someone from Wikipedia tells you to "be civil," you can bet there's a banhammer waiting behind the back if you slip up. It's a means of stifling discussion, not facilitating it. So, you can hardly blame people who have (for the most part) been burned in that fashion for not adhering too strictly to the "we're all nice and full of love for each other" trope. Admittedly, some of us do just because we were raised that way - myself, for example - but not all of us were raised that way. And, of course, many of our members are English, and if you think I'm cynical, well.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:52 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
wllm wrote:But we're not on Wikipedia right now.
You know what I meant. When someone from Wikipedia tells you to "be civil," you can bet there's a banhammer waiting behind the back if you slip up. It's a means of stifling discussion, not facilitating it. So, you can hardly blame people who have (for the most part) been burned in that fashion for not adhering too strictly to "we're all nice and full of love for each other" trope. Admittedly, some of us do just because we were raised that way - myself, for example - but not all of us were raised that way.

Actually, wllm might not know.

At Wikipedia, baiting people into 'incivility' is a time honored method for banning one's opponent. And in the vernacular, they've literally tortured meaning of the word "civility" for this purpose.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:54 am

TungstenCarbide wrote: Actually, wllm might not know. At Wikipedia, bating people into 'incivility' is a time honored method for banning one's opponent. They've literally managed to tortured meaning of "civility" for this purpose.

Can anyone ban anyone else here?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue May 06, 2014 7:58 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:Actually, wllm might not know. At Wikipedia, bating people into 'incivility' is a time honored method for banning one's opponent. They've literally managed to tortured meaning of "civility" for this purpose.

It's probably a good thing we didn't also take issue with his other implication too, that we might somehow think he was trying to impose "censorship" on us. That's yet another word they've managed to torture the meaning of, to the point where even Dick Cheney would probably object to it.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue May 06, 2014 8:09 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:I'm not sure that's true. Drama and wit can be a potent fuel for discussion and interaction. There was another Wikipedia criticism forum created by a Wikipedia insider, some organ player from Minneapolis, I forget his name. It was secco and died a quick death. Anyone remember that?

Ah, you're talking about "Wikback," which was started ca. 2008 by User:UninvitedCompany (T-C-L), who I now recall is, in fact, an organ player (as also stated on his user page). But it hardly died a "quick death" - I remember it being an excruciating, frankly-embarrassing 6-10 months.

And yes, that was a fine example of how applying Wikipedia civility rules to a criticism forum is a recipe for forum-death. That wasn't its only problem, but it was one of the top five, at least.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue May 06, 2014 8:26 am

wllm wrote:Can anyone ban anyone else here?

No, but there are plenty of people who would just love to be able to ban our members on Wikipedia for statements they make here, assuming they haven't already done so.

And again, you're asking the wrong questions, to the point where I have to assume you're doing it deliberately. We gave you several reasons why we don't - indeed, can't, implement and/or enforce "civility" rules here. It doesn't mean we can't be civil by choice if the situation calls for it, but the fact remains we're not here to make friends. Unlike Wikipedia, this is not a social-networking site. Some people may not like our tone, or our language, or how we smell after a six-hour car trip, but that kind of shallow dismissive attitude is a hallmark of the very sort of people we're criticizing in the first place.

Besides, we're not even the most likely source of criticism-derived headaches that Lila Tretikov is going to receive. That would be the dozen-or-so members of the vengeful ex-admin brigade on Wikipedia, and especially Commons, who will gleefully use any pretext imaginable to rub her nose in whatever minor, not-her-fault scandal that happens, repeatedly and continually, just to show how wrong and foolish and hypocritical they all were for taking away their advanced user privileges. We're actually more likely to sympathize with her for having to try and deal with a user base that resembles nothing more than a herd of snails when change is called for, or a herd of cats when order and unanimity-of-purpose is called for. So hey, good luck with that too!

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue May 06, 2014 9:02 am

Wil. Thanks for opening this thread. As you can see from the responses, what most of us think is wrong with Wikipedia has little or nothing to do with technical issues. This forum has one (I think) thread addressing Wikimedia's technical challenges.

The technical user experience is in crisis, and Lila looks like the kind of ED who can address that, if anyone can. I am rooting for her. My concern is, surely fixing that is going to be a full-time job. But that technical crisis is dwarfed by the unreliability of the content, social dysfunction, contempt for the victims of our biographies etc., and it worries me that Lila may be unprepared for the latter and, even if she is across the epistemology, organisational psychology and moral philosophy needed to address those, even if she sees through the Potemkin village presented by the WMF ... she just won't have the hours in the day to do anything about them.

I agree with you about the tone of this site. It could be much better. But it's the only place you can speak truth to power and actually be heard.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue May 06, 2014 9:05 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
wllm wrote:Can anyone ban anyone else here?
No, but there are plenty of people who would just love to be able to ban our members on Wikipedia for statements they make here, assuming they haven't already done so.

And again, you're asking the wrong questions, to the point where I have to assume you're doing it deliberately. We gave you several reasons why we don't - indeed, can't, implement and/or enforce "civility" rules here. It doesn't mean we can't be civil by choice if the situation calls for it, but the fact remains we're not here to make friends. Unlike Wikipedia, this is not a social-networking site. Some people may not like our tone, or our language, or how we smell after a six-hour car trip, but that kind of shallow dismissive attitude is a hallmark of the very sort of people we're criticizing in the first place.

Besides, we're not even the most likely source of criticism-derived headaches that Lila Tretikov is going to receive. That would be the dozen-or-so members of the vengeful ex-admin brigade on Wikipedia, and especially Commons, who will gleefully use any pretext imaginable to rub her nose in whatever minor, not-her-fault scandal that happens, repeatedly and continually, just to show how wrong and foolish and hypocritical they all were for taking away their advanced user privileges. We're actually more likely to sympathize with her for having to try and deal with a user base that resembles nothing more than a herd of snails when change is called for, or a herd of cats when order and unanimity-of-purpose is called for. So hey, good luck with that too!

Yep.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Tue May 06, 2014 10:01 am

In the predecessor thread, I wrote

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Thus far, while wllm has briefly discussed proposed solutions to problems for many issues, wllm has failed to acknowledge having read anything about child protection.

Please read Sue Gardner's talk page in its entirety, in the version that was kindly linked by Vigilant (above). The following topics also appear:
WMF's and WP's IRC channels.
Follow up on Child protection.
Follow up on child protection (2)
Follow up on child protection (3)

Most of us consider that WMF should prudently implement some version of standard child-protection policies, such as those of the Girl Scouts, simply because it is right.

Consider the consequences of what would happen, at least to Lila's reputation, if child-predation becomes public, in terms of what a US prosecutor and US jury would do after reading the above cries for help and warnings (and similar cries for help regarding Commons), Sue's support of e.g. Erik Möller and Ryan Kaldari, etc.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue May 06, 2014 10:34 am

wllm wrote: Secondly, trash talk doesn't encourage anyone to listen to what one has to say. Lila isn't going to waste her time reading a bunch of snarky comments that just make it harder for her to cut through the drama. Simply put, no one is going to take anything said in a thread that has a lot of trash talk in it seriously.

WP is all dramah. Its lifeblood is dramah, and could not exist as constituted without dramah. Get used to it.

Rational debate regarding the problems there is impossible. The debate over whether the medical articles should have a prominent warning is but a recent example. The ethnic, religious, and sexuality tagging is yet another stupid debate that runs and runs. Letting children curate pornography is yet another. An sexualized image of someone that is obviously not an adult descends into counting hairs on upper thighs or debating whether they may use depilatories or whther they might be 17 or 18, etc. Everything descends into NOTCENSORED everything devolves into "Its not actually illegal to do this!"

You have become part of a pack that is not a particularly good neighbour. The very sort one might think that, absent a city ordinance prohibiting the act, would think nothing of defecating in shop doorways.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue May 06, 2014 10:59 am

wllm wrote:Can anyone ban anyone else here?

Why is this important, and would you want to be able to ban anyone here?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:07 am

I wonder if wllm realizes that Wikipediocracy had nothing to do with the commissioning of this artwork. Wil, you can whine all you want about the "civility" of this forum, but (as mentioned above) we are nothing compared to the utter gall of the insiders on Wikimedia projects, in terms of how rude they will be to the "real people" who run (or co-founded) their projects.

I'll look forward to your not having time to lecture us any more about the appropriateness of discussions about tattoos, because you'll actually be reading and absorbing all of the horrifying documented material that we've asked you to read, but you're apparently not reading.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:15 am

wllm wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:As much as we'd like her participation, someone in that position doesn't have much to gain posting here, sorry to say, but it's true. She won't be able to honestly comment on the undercurrents that drive the WMF, and any evasiveness will set off the klaxons. That being said, she has a lot to gain reading here.
Well, for one, she could show everyone that they are talking about- and to- a real person.

Secondly, trash talk doesn't encourage anyone to listen to what one has to say. Lila isn't going to waste her time reading a bunch of snarky comments that just make it harder for her to cut through the drama. Simply put, no one is going to take anything said in a thread that has a lot of trash talk in it seriously.

Not sure if she knows this, but she is going to get much of the same snarky comments at Wikipedia. But I agree completely that some of the comments on here, even some I have made about various things push the bounds. I also agree with Tungsten. She probably has more to gain from reading the comments here than to actually participating in them. With that said and best intentions aside, I find it extraordinarily unlikely she will be able to affect any meaningful change anyway.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:27 am

thekohser wrote:I wonder if wllm realizes that Wikipediocracy had nothing to do with the commissioning of this artwork. Wil, you can whine all you want about the "civility" of this forum, but (as mentioned above) we are nothing compared to the utter gall of the insiders on Wikimedia projects, in terms of how rude they will be to the "real people" who run (or co-founded) their projects.

I'll look forward to your not having time to lecture us any more about the appropriateness of discussions about tattoos, because you'll actually be reading and absorbing all of the horrifying documented material that we've asked you to read, but you're apparently not reading.

For what its worth I think Jimbo took that artwork thing with the wrong attitude. Of course I had absolutely nothing to do with it but personally I would have laughed my @$$ off. Not that I would have hung it in the living room mind you but maybe the man cave....maybe next to the pinball machine...or in the downstairs bathroom. But that as with many things artwork isn't appreciated by some. I can tell you that painting is more than anyone on Wikipedia ever gave him, other than irritation anyway.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:34 am

wllm wrote:Lila isn't going to waste her time reading a bunch of snarky comments that just make it harder for her to cut through the drama.

She hasn't met David Gerard yet, then, I take it.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:40 am

Midsize Jake wrote:Wikipedia basically exists for drama. It feeds off it, it lives off it. Drama is the air that it breathes. The "encyclopedia" is simply a means to an end, and that end is drama. As our own Kelly Martin once (somewhat famously) said, "Nothing reduces drama in the long term at Wikipedia; Wikipedia is constructed so as to maximize drama. The Wikipedia system interprets the absence of drama as damage and routes around it."

I had forgotten I'd said that, but it does sound like something I'd say.

Note that I don't think that Wikipedia was deliberately designed this way; this is an epiphenomenal effect of multiple bad decisions in Wikipedia governance in the early years. Most of that blame falls on Jimmy Wales' head, although there are certainly others (Erik Moeller, The Cunctator, and several others) who contributed to the culture. But really the main driver of this dynamic is simple human nature. "Someone is wrong on the Internet" is what drives long-term Wikipedia participation.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:54 am

wllm wrote:Is it so hard to be civil?

I don't think I've ever been accused of being uncivil on 'that' site. However, I've probably been far more insulting there than here. Its just that there the insults have a glossy veneer of civility. Peal that away and what you will find is unadulterated contempt. In the grand scheme of things this is nothing in comparison to this.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:50 pm

wllm wrote: Secondly, trash talk doesn't encourage anyone to listen to what one has to say. Lila isn't going to waste her time reading a bunch of snarky comments that just make it harder for her to cut through the drama. Simply put, no one is going to take anything said in a thread that has a lot of trash talk in it seriously.

To second Tungsten Carbide and Midsize Jake:

No disrespect necessarily intended, but your lady (and you?) have a great deal of trash to pick up in your Wikipedia backyard, in its mob-rule administrative forums, on its secretive and often vile official mailing lists and IRC channels, and amongst majority of your administrators and several of your charity-paid employees, before you can lecture Wikipediocracy about the way we talk.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:06 pm

wllm wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote: Actually, wllm might not know. At Wikipedia, bating people into 'incivility' is a time honored method for banning one's opponent. They've literally managed to tortured meaning of "civility" for this purpose.
Can anyone ban anyone else here?

Guys. Be reasonable, please. Look at what I quoted. Asking if the policies of this site include banning does not constitute a desire to in any way to ban anyone. I've mentioned multiple times that I have never asked that anything be censored on this site and have absolutely no interest in doing so. I want to hear what you have to say, and I want others to, too.

I made a personal, absolutely unenforceable appeal to each of you individually to consider the affect of your words on others. I'm sorry if you find this offensive.

I'm done lecturing now. I've said what I wanted to say on this topic, and there are now others I'd like to move on to so that I can get to know a bit more about the issues that you guys seem to be very anxious to tell me about.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:09 pm

wllm wrote:I made a personal, absolutely unenforceable appeal to each of you individually to consider the affect of your words on others. I'm sorry if you find this offensive.

You'll find that most of us here are quite adept at moderating our tone to achieve effect. That includes, by the way, using moderately or even grossly offensive language.

I'm glad that you admit that you've been lecturing us and will hold you to your promise to stop. We're not really looking for unsolicited advice on how to run our forum.

If you are truly so interested in learning about the issues that we're interested in, I would (as many others have already said) advise you to read our blog.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:24 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
wllm wrote:I made a personal, absolutely unenforceable appeal to each of you individually to consider the affect of your words on others. I'm sorry if you find this offensive.
You'll find that most of us here are quite adept at moderating our tone to achieve effect. That includes, by the way, using moderately or even grossly offensive language.

I'm glad that you admit that you've been lecturing us and will hold you to your promise to stop. We're not really looking for unsolicited advice on how to run our forum.

If you are truly so interested in learning about the issues that we're interested in, I would (as many others have already said) advise you to read our blog.

Wil, How about you put some skin in the game?
Read the threads we've sent you.
Come back and comment on what you think of the problems presented there.

Show us you can understand what we're upset about.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:55 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
wllm wrote:I made a personal, absolutely unenforceable appeal to each of you individually to consider the affect of your words on others. I'm sorry if you find this offensive.
You'll find that most of us here are quite adept at moderating our tone to achieve effect. That includes, by the way, using moderately or even grossly offensive language.

I'm glad that you admit that you've been lecturing us and will hold you to your promise to stop. We're not really looking for unsolicited advice on how to run our forum.

If you are truly so interested in learning about the issues that we're interested in, I would (as many others have already said) advise you to read our blog.

Wil, How about you put some skin in the game?
Read the threads we've sent you.
Come back and comment on what you think of the problems presented there.

Show us you can understand what we're upset about.

Wil, Vigilant and Kelly have a point. Without this background, our conversation is bound to bear some conceptual similarities to a conversation based on only the first or second sequences in the following classic video:
So we understand how much context you have, could you let us know which of the following you've read/viewed?

Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia (c|net)
Wikipedia charity chairman resigns after pornography row (The Telegraph)
Wikipedia charity faces investigation over trustee 'conflict of interest' (The Telegraph)
Wikimedia UK trustees have been 'too involved' to effectively govern charity (Civil Society)
Review urges major overhaul of governance at Wikimedia UK (Third Sector)

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales restricts discussion of Tony Blair friendship (The Telegraph)
Wikipedia's odd relationship with the Kazakh dictatorship (The Daily Dot)

Wikipedia's shame (Salon)
Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia (Salon)

What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem? (by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger)
How Wikimedia Commons became a massive amateur porn hub (The Daily Dot)
Revolting peasants force Wikipedia to cut'n'paste Visual Editor into the bin (The Register)
Wikipedia faces revolt over VisualEditor (The Daily Dot)

One of Wikimedia's largest donors accused in paid editing scandal (The Daily Dot)

How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history (The Daily Dot)

Are plastic surgeons nip/tucking ads into high-profile Wikipedia articles? (The Daily Dot)

Where does your Wikipedia donation go? Outgoing chief warns of potential corruption (The Daily Dot)
Wikipedia Foundation exec: Yes, we've been wasting your money (The Register)

While this is by no means an exhaustive list, it's a useful cross-section of issues people on this site have been concerned about for the past two years or so.

And which of the Wikipediocracy blog posts have you read to date?

Wil, if you're not prepared to do such background reading, our exchange will not achieve its full potential. So, please, do us the courtesy to get stuck in, let us have your thoughts and tell us which of these stories affected you most.

Incidentally, I'd recommend a perusal of the above articles to Lila, too.