WMF Liaison wrote Essay insulting Wikipedians

[Mason]

Split from the Visual Editor topic -Zoloft

I was reading Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists (T-H-L) this morning and was surprised to see this rather hostile paragraph at the end of it:

== History ==

This page was created because of a dispute over whether the English Wikipedia should use the same style as all the other sister projects. In December 2011, there was an overwhelmingly positive, community-initiated, CENT-listed RFC at the Village pump to enable one change to match the default style used on hundreds of other WMF projects. (It had previously been turned off due to concerns about overloading the servers.) After it was implemented a few months later, this consensus was overruled by power users who disliked it.

I thought the link at the end would take me to a discussion of where the power users decided to remove the feature (whatever it was - the paragraph was quite vague on that point), but nope, it links to Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia (T-H-L).

The paragraph was added two months ago by WMF staffer and community liaison WhatamIdoing (T-C-L), who has popped up quite a bit in this thread.

I've removed it but expect to be reverted.

[Hex]

I thought the link at the end would take me to a discussion of where the power users decided to remove the feature (whatever it was - the paragraph was quite vague on that point), but nope, it links to Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia (T-H-L).

The paragraph was added two months ago by WMF staffer and community liaison WhatamIdoing (T-C-L), who has popped up quite a bit in this thread.

I've never seen that essay before. It was created in 2011 by... WhatamIdoing. Uh-huh.

[Zoloft]

Wow.

That is one condescending, insulting, rancid essay.

WP:MfD (T-H-L), anyone?

When I get home from work (It's my lunchtime, if anyone cares) I may just take a hatchet to that thing.

[Kelly Martin]

Make sure a copy is preserved, as this reflects important insights into how the WMF views the community.

[Hex]

WP:MfD (T-H-L), anyone?

When I get home from work (It's my lunchtime, if anyone cares) I may just take a hatchet to that thing.

Don't forget to list the shortcut in the nomination.

[Zoloft]

Instead of taking the essay to deletion, I decided to instead split these posts into their own topic.

Whatamidoing (T-C-L) is a WMF staffer and community liaison. In this essay (permalink), she puts us peons in our rightful place.

Wikipedia: You don't own Wikipedia

WP:YDOW (T-H-L)

Excerpt:

On complex, community-oriented websites like the WMF projects, power users are accustomed to many social perks. They receive respect and honor from other members. Their knowledge of the technology wins them accolades and thanks from less adept users. Their knowledge of the community's standards and its Byzantine bureaucratic procedures results in them winning most disputes and easily avoiding lost causes. From the perspective of some of the less collegial ones, participation in the community can be largely a series of ego-stroking and self-esteem-enhancing interactions with lesser beings, punctuated by the occasional struggle among power users to identify their places in the community's dominance hierarchy. Eventually, many power users decide that they are entitled to this preferential treatment.

Narcissistic injury is the emotional damage that these power users incur when they discover, as they inevitably do, that their top place in the community's social hierarchy does not actually mean that they are in control of the website. The inescapable fact is that you don't own Wikipedia: the Wikimedia Foundation outranks the community.

[AndyTheGrump]

I've done a little revising

[EricBarbour]

What, you guys are just now discovering that thing?.....when I wrote up a book-wiki article about Madame Snyder, in February I saw and noted this, but didn't tell anyone else. Because I assumed you had all seen it.

Previously mentioned here.
viewtopic.php?p=83147#p83147

[MilesMoney]

What, you guys are just now discovering that thing?.....when I wrote up a book-wiki article about Madame Snyder, in February I saw and noted this, but didn't tell anyone else. Because I assumed you had all seen it.

Previously mentioned here.
viewtopic.php?p=83147#p83147

What I find amazing is that, after accurately summarizing how wiki-bullies game the system and make it hell on regular editors, it just insists that the WMF employees are even bigger bullies. You'd think that the WMF would have some sort of interest in ending the abusiveness, not just declaring themselves kings among abusers. Well, you wouldn't think that because you know better, but you know what I'm getting at...

[Zoloft]

I've done a little revising

I read your editorial changes and I honestly almost choked on my cheese sandwich.

Bravo.

[Michaeldsuarez]

You're viewing the creation of the "You don't own Wikipedia" essay in the wrong context: WhatamIdoing wasn't working for the WMF at the time she wrote that essay. She wrote it as a fellow member of the community.

[Abd]

Okay, color me sucked in.

The essay starts out with a description of what happens in the community. It's pretty accurate. Then it segues into something that completely misses the point. After establishing the concept of Power Users, it then has, addressing Power Users:

The inescapable fact is that you don't own Wikipedia: the Wikimedia Foundation outranks the community.

That's a great example of something that is technically true and substantially false.

Yeah, some Power Users develop an inflated sense of control, and this is what the essay is addressing. But ... Power Users do, in practice, own the project because the WMF has almost totally abandoned control to the Community, which means to nobody. Nobody controls the project, then, legally, except that the WMF retains a shred of responsibility, hence OTRS.

The Power Users also do not control the community, but it's rare that the distinction is tested. Routinely, Power Users have developed such massive influence that opposition is normally futile.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

You're viewing the creation of the "You don't own Wikipedia" essay in the wrong context: WhatamIdoing wasn't working for the WMF at the time she wrote that essay. She wrote it as a fellow member of the community.

I don't know that this is a wrong context. Perhaps she was hired because of her attitude.

Looking at Andythegrump's changes, I think he might be headed south. Andythegrump functions in the anti-fringe cabal, going after editors with a Bad Point of View, seeking and often getting them banned, but that cabal is not fully dominant, merely dangerous and relatively powerful. It loses, often, whenever there is sufficient community attention.

It's quite funny that he jumped in here. He's not necessarily correct. The WMF could, if it decided, shut down open editing and implement Flagged Revisions again, telling the "community" that thinks it owns the project to shove it. What I really wonder is how much negative effect this would have on editing. If at the same time, there were massive amnesty on all non-vandalism bans, editing might actually increase. The WMF would then be very careful about assigning reviewer privileges.

But I don't see the WMF as having the cojones to do this. Everything I've seen in the past has shown a kind of terror at the possibility that the work force would go on strike, though that probably would not happen if the WMF actually did something sane.

[Zoloft]

My favorite parts of the essay are all the amateur psychological diagnoses.

[MilesMoney]

Okay, color me sucked in.

The essay starts out with a description of what happens in the community. It's pretty accurate. Then it segues into something that completely misses the point. After establishing the concept of Power Users, it then has, addressing Power Users:

The inescapable fact is that you don't own Wikipedia: the Wikimedia Foundation outranks the community.

That's a great example of something that is technically true and substantially false.

Yeah, some Power Users develop an inflated sense of control, and this is what the essay is addressing. But ... Power Users do, in practice, own the project because the WMF has almost totally abandoned control to the Community, which means to nobody. Nobody controls the project, then, legally, except that the WMF retains a shred of responsibility, hence OTRS.

The Power Users also do not control the community, but it's rare that the distinction is tested. Routinely, Power Users have developed such massive influence that opposition is normally futile.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

You're viewing the creation of the "You don't own Wikipedia" essay in the wrong context: WhatamIdoing wasn't working for the WMF at the time she wrote that essay. She wrote it as a fellow member of the community.

I don't know that this is a wrong context. Perhaps she was hired because of her attitude.

Looking at Andythegrump's changes, I think he might be headed south. Andythegrump functions in the anti-fringe cabal, going after editors with a Bad Point of View, seeking and often getting them banned, but that cabal is not fully dominant, merely dangerous and relatively powerful. It loses, often, whenever there is sufficient community attention.

It's quite funny that he jumped in here. He's not necessarily correct. The WMF could, if it decided, shut down open editing and implement Flagged Revisions again, telling the "community" that thinks it owns the project to shove it. What I really wonder is how much negative effect this would have on editing. If at the same time, there were massive amnesty on all non-vandalism bans, editing might actually increase. The WMF would then be very careful about assigning reviewer privileges.

But I don't see the WMF as having the cojones to do this. Everything I've seen in the past has shown a kind of terror at the possibility that the work force would go on strike, though that probably would not happen if the WMF actually did something sane.

As usual, interesting points. If WP had some sort of functioning dispute resolution system, then they wouldn't need posses of anti-Fringe thugs to keep the fringe garbage out. Even when WP gets something right, they do it the wrong way.

If they enacted a ban jubilee, forgiving all sins and allowing everyone back, they'd get more editors, but they'd also get more conflict, and they don't know how to deal with conflict except by getting rid of editors. Bans don't work anyhow because determined nuts just sock right back in. The only people harmed by them are the relatively sane who refuse to lower themselves to that level.

All this is a fantasy, not only because the WMF is short on testicular fortitude, but also because they still have no idea of how to deal with conflict. I don't think they ever will, either. In principle, change could come from outside, but I don't see how. Things are just going to keep going downhill.

[Ajraddatz]

As usual, interesting points. If WP had some sort of functioning dispute resolution system, then they wouldn't need posses of anti-Fringe thugs to keep the fringe garbage out. Even when WP gets something right, they do it the wrong way.

If they enacted a ban jubilee, forgiving all sins and allowing everyone back, they'd get more editors, but they'd also get more conflict, and they don't know how to deal with conflict except by getting rid of editors. Bans don't work anyhow because determined nuts just sock right back in. The only people harmed by them are the relatively sane who refuse to lower themselves to that level.

All this is a fantasy, not only because the WMF is short on testicular fortitude, but also because they still have no idea of how to deal with conflict. I don't think they ever will, either. In principle, change could come from outside, but I don't see how. Things are just going to keep going downhill.

It is comments like this that keep me reading WO every now and then. With mobile ranges and proxies, anyone who wants to avoid a block can easily do so, and quite a few "long-term abusers" do.

I have always been amazed at the apparent need for admins to get rid of any user who disagrees with them or they find annoying, regardless of the work they do. What's worse is that this so often translates into an admin (who on average does little content work due to spending time doing adminy things) removing someone who is actually interested in improving the quality or breadth of content. I've always thought that a solution to this problem is for admins to step back a bit. Some seem to take it a bit too seriously, and I think need to realize that there are actual vandals and other problems that they can deal with. Some especially need to learn to not take every comment directed at them as a personal attack. As someone who does little actual content work on Wikimedia, I find it sad that so often those who do are being removed for the wrong reasons.

Reading the essay put a smile on my face; as mentioned above, it is perhaps true de jure, but not even close de facto. Especially with the deployment of social features, the WMF tends to roll over at the sight of any community opposition. In light of that, the section on egotistical power users was an interesting read, though I don't think it is appropriately named. It really applies to a large number of the people who oppose actions taken by the WMF regardless of whether or not they are power users. And of course, it doesn't seem likely that the WMF will step up and change this or the methods of dispute resolution.

[MilesMoney]

It is comments like this that keep me reading WO every now and then. With mobile ranges and proxies, anyone who wants to avoid a block can easily do so, and quite a few "long-term abusers" do.

I have always been amazed at the apparent need for admins to get rid of any user who disagrees with them or they find annoying, regardless of the work they do. What's worse is that this so often translates into an admin (who on average does little content work due to spending time doing adminy things) removing someone who is actually interested in improving the quality or breadth of content. I've always thought that a solution to this problem is for admins to step back a bit. Some seem to take it a bit too seriously, and I think need to realize that there are actual vandals and other problems that they can deal with. Some especially need to learn to not take every comment directed at them as a personal attack. As someone who does little actual content work on Wikimedia, I find it sad that so often those who do are being removed for the wrong reasons.

Reading the essay put a smile on my face; as mentioned above, it is perhaps true de jure, but not even close de facto. Especially with the deployment of social features, the WMF tends to roll over at the sight of any community opposition. In light of that, the section on egotistical power users was an interesting read, though I don't think it is appropriately named. It really applies to a large number of the people who oppose actions taken by the WMF regardless of whether or not they are power users. And of course, it doesn't seem likely that the WMF will step up and change this or the methods of dispute resolution.

If you look at it from the point of view of the WMF, they're in the situation of the farmer whose goose lays golden eggs. Technically, the WMF owns WP, so they could do all kinds of crazy shit, and some of it might work, but they're terrified that putting their foot down would scare away whoever's left.

As it is, the only way they're keeping many editors (and especially admins) involved is by giving them power over the rest, but this is just catering to the crazy and evil. For borderline sociopaths and brutal bullies, like MONGO and TParis, respectively, WP offers a place for them to act out their domination and manipulation fantasies or simply abuse people, all without repercussions. The WMF is letting the inmates run the asylum because it's cheaper than hiring guards and they don't give a fuck about the harm.

To follow up on what Abd said, the whole NotVoting thing is a huge joke. If it's not voting, why bother counting up how many people support each view? Why don't they exclude views that are contrary to the facts or policies? It's the worst of both worlds: the mob rule of voting without human rights combined with the arbitrariness of some asshole "closing" the vote without being bound by it. This is exactly the sort of intentionally ambiguous non-policy that favors the loons. There is, in fact, no functioning content dispute mechanism in WP. Not even close.

This is what causes all the other problems. If the WMF let principle drive them instead of greed, they'd remove all bans, abolish the Administrator system entirely and take full responsibility for their "encyclopedia". They would tackle the job of determining content head-on, since nobody else is in any position to do it for them.

[enwikibadscience]

...

I have always been amazed at the apparent need for admins to get rid of any user who disagrees with them ....



As it is, the only way they're keeping many editors (and especially admins) involved is by giving them power over the rest, but this is just catering to the crazy and evil. For borderline sociopaths and brutal bullies, like MONGO and TParis, respectively, WP offers a place for them to act out their domination and manipulation fantasies or simply abuse people, all without repercussions. The WMF is letting the inmates run the asylum because it's cheaper than hiring guards and they don't give a fuck about the harm.

.....

Not the particular ones you mention, but, this is how it rolls, lots of sociopaths, and the admins are not creating content, stopped for years, so what do they know about or care about the supposed goal of the encyclopedia?

Not disagreeing with your choices, just don't know them. Worked briefly with MONGO on some articles, had no issues, see TP around, not in content areas, though.

[HRIP7]

As usual, interesting points. If WP had some sort of functioning dispute resolution system, then they wouldn't need posses of anti-Fringe thugs to keep the fringe garbage out. Even when WP gets something right, they do it the wrong way.

If they enacted a ban jubilee, forgiving all sins and allowing everyone back, they'd get more editors, but they'd also get more conflict, and they don't know how to deal with conflict except by getting rid of editors. Bans don't work anyhow because determined nuts just sock right back in. The only people harmed by them are the relatively sane who refuse to lower themselves to that level.

All this is a fantasy, not only because the WMF is short on testicular fortitude, but also because they still have no idea of how to deal with conflict. I don't think they ever will, either. In principle, change could come from outside, but I don't see how. Things are just going to keep going downhill.

It is comments like this that keep me reading WO every now and then. With mobile ranges and proxies, anyone who wants to avoid a block can easily do so, and quite a few "long-term abusers" do.

I have always been amazed at the apparent need for admins to get rid of any user who disagrees with them or they find annoying, regardless of the work they do. What's worse is that this so often translates into an admin (who on average does little content work due to spending time doing adminy things) removing someone who is actually interested in improving the quality or breadth of content. I've always thought that a solution to this problem is for admins to step back a bit. Some seem to take it a bit too seriously, and I think need to realize that there are actual vandals and other problems that they can deal with. Some especially need to learn to not take every comment directed at them as a personal attack. As someone who does little actual content work on Wikimedia, I find it sad that so often those who do are being removed for the wrong reasons.

Reading the essay put a smile on my face; as mentioned above, it is perhaps true de jure, but not even close de facto. Especially with the deployment of social features, the WMF tends to roll over at the sight of any community opposition. In light of that, the section on egotistical power users was an interesting read, though I don't think it is appropriately named. It really applies to a large number of the people who oppose actions taken by the WMF regardless of whether or not they are power users. And of course, it doesn't seem likely that the WMF will step up and change this or the methods of dispute resolution.

Thanks. But why do you only write on Christmas and birthdays?

Welcome back.

[Ajraddatz]

Thanks. But why do you only write on Christmas and birthdays?

Welcome back.

I've found that I can make more of a difference actively working against some of the problems on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, rather than commenting on them on a separate site. What drew me to comment here was the bit on banned content contributors, which I advocate against whenever possible, but have rarely been able to stop.

[MilesMoney]

Not the particular ones you mention, but, this is how it rolls, lots of sociopaths, and the admins are not creating content, stopped for years, so what do they know about or care about the supposed goal of the encyclopedia?

Not disagreeing with your choices, just don't know them. Worked briefly with MONGO on some articles, had no issues, see TP around, not in content areas, though.

I've never dealt with either MONGO or TParis on articles, just on WP:ANI, talk pages and other drama areas. MONGO's one of Arthur Rubin's bodyguards; he defaced my user page after I reported Rubin for violating an ArbCom topic ban. If you visit his talk page, you can see where he conspired with corrupt admin Georgewilliamherbert and ringleader Collect to set me up for a ban with false SPI claims.

TParis is an ax man; his primary job as an admin is to close ANI reports favorably to right-wing interests. He tried repeatedly to take me out before he finally succeeded, and he has a track record of banning others who have walked into the same trap. He has no productive role in building an encyclopedia.

I picked two that I knew about, but let's not get stuck on them. They're nothing special or unusual. In different areas of controversy, there are other goons just like them. This is how WP "works". There's no functioning dispute resolution mechanism, so this is what evolves to fill the power vacuum.

[Zoloft]

Update: Folks have reverted the essay back to more or less its state when we found it (folks including Whatamidoing (T-C-L)), and the author has defiantly and querulously defended the essay against Ceoil (T-C-L) on her talk page: link