I'm not asking Matt. I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this very list. "Rogol" On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

David Forum shopping is usually considered to be taking an issue from one forum to another hoping to get the answer you want. I do not believe I have raised this question in any other forum. I hope that helps you make the distinction your are having difficulty with. Please explain what you believe to be the relevant community and where you would expect to publicise these issues in order to engage with them. If the Code is to be imposed by WMF fiat, then this forum seems an approrpiate place for the Foundation to publish their instructions. "Rogol" On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:30 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Well, one of us is in the wrong place. I'm posting to the list described as "Discussion list for *the Wikimedia community* and the larger network of organizations [...] supporting its work." – my emphasis. It seems that "This mailing list can, for example, be used for: [...] The initial planning phase of potential new Wikimedia projects and initiatives Organizational issues of the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations, others Discussing the setup of local Wikimedia chapters Developing and evaluating grant-making programs Planning elections, polls and votes Discussion of projects that don't already have a mailing list Finding ways to raise funds Other Wikimedia-related issues My post relates to items 1,2,5 and 8 on that list. "Rogol" On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Pine, On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:45 PM, you wrote: Unfortunately cultural change is unlikely to happen against a background of perpetual unwarranted self-congratulation and complacency. A clear articulation of areas needing improvement and suggestions for ways of improving may not always make for comfortable reading, but I make no apology for presenting that position. I would have been happy to have been able to be more detailed in my suggestions, but it seems to me that the Foundation is, and has been for some time, unable or unwilling to acknowledge, let alone respond to or engage with, the attempts by numerous community members to initiate a serious engagement. Perhaps your experience in this area has been better, and if so, I would be pleased to hear from you what your successes have been and how you have achieved them. "Rogol"

Hoi, You seek cultural change but what is it that you want to change? You are outspoken and as others commented an edge that is more than confrontational. My appreciation is one where I fail to see the connection with what we do, it is only about how we do it. That is in my opinion overrated. In many ways, I have found that our community is overly self observed. They care mostly about their patch and when changes happen they are possessive; they hardly care about how together with a more communal effort we make more progress. I give you one example; I got in contact with people who (take) care of the Black Lunch Table. We discussed the issues with the project and we worked to manage the project largely using Wikidata. So all the 900+ people including the "red links" where added to Wikidata. After a discussion at Wikidata we now use "catalog" with "Black Lunch Table" to indicate the items involved. The benefits: in stead of three Wikitables that have to be maintained, Listeria does all three based on the same data. We found that many other Wikipedias have articles on the people identified by the Black Lunch Table and the same queries should work on those Wikipedias as well. The consequence is that more time can be spend on actually caring about the project, the articles and even the data. My point is that community is NOT about how we are supposed to do things because if we had to ask the community for this experiment, we would have no answer. It is because true people from the community, people who make a difference for the projects themselves were involved, they allowed for the experiment and are starting to see their benefit and the benefit for us all. Now THAT is a cultural change and my challenge is old; I want to discuss quality with Wiki people and I want us to do better. When we do better, we will be better able to recognise fake facts. For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick in the mud as it stifles initiative? Thanks, GerardM On 5 March 2017 at 11:21, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors(a)gmail.com> wrote:

We have 61000 editors that made more the 5 edits last month and 8800 making more then 100 edits. Last election to the Board attracted 5500 voters. These figures gives a magnitude of the numbers in the community. The number of active on this list are around 50-100, and normal participations in meta discussion (except when it was for Visual editor) are at best 100-200. I truly believe we should not be content to say these 100-200 are the community or spokespersons for the community. And I admire the approach being made by WMF in the strategy project, to actively try to reach out to a broader audience then these 100-200 So I believe her has always been an issue of the dialogue between the community and WMF, both referring to who is the community and the dialogue in itself. But I do see that the approach being taken by WMF now and lately does a lot to resolve this issue and and is worth both praise and support And I do would like to see less of "We the community" by people on this list Anders Den 2017-03-06 kl. 20:07, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:

Agreed, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 9:21 PM To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force? We have 61000 editors that made more the 5 edits last month and 8800 making more then 100 edits. Last election to the Board attracted 5500 voters. These figures gives a magnitude of the numbers in the community. The number of active on this list are around 50-100, and normal participations in meta discussion (except when it was for Visual editor) are at best 100-200. I truly believe we should not be content to say these 100-200 are the community or spokespersons for the community. And I admire the approach being made by WMF in the strategy project, to actively try to reach out to a broader audience then these 100-200 So I believe her has always been an issue of the dialogue between the community and WMF, both referring to who is the community and the dialogue in itself. But I do see that the approach being taken by WMF now and lately does a lot to resolve this issue and and is worth both praise and support And I do would like to see less of "We the community" by people on this list Anders Den 2017-03-06 kl. 20:07, skrev Rogol Domedonfors: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17

Hoi, As far as I am concerned we have working and workable procedures. The problem that I see is that the primacy is not with the "community" in everything. We have multiple communities and there is no single subset that can claim sovereignty over everything with the possible exception of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Who has an explicit role in this. What I have observed is that there is too much discussion that can be characterised with "turf war" and too little discussion about what it is we do and how we can improve on it. Quality of the content of our projects trumps what some of the community want every time. We are so engrossed in what we do and for most of the vocal ones it is English Wikipedia so much so that we accept its resolutions as resolutions. They are often baked in the software and to be honest that is extremely problematic. When you start with our primary objective; sharing the sum of all knowledge, the experiment performed on the Volapük Wikipedia is of extreme interest. It generated a lot of articles using translation software and the result was a lot of interest including people reading it. Fast forward and you find articles created based on DATA for Wikipedias that are actually useful. These articles provide a purpose and are read. People still object because their role as an editor is diminished and "who is going to update when the data is wrong?". Issues like this can be solved but they do not get attention by the WMF staff because of "the community". They do not get attention from the "community leaders" because obviously it would not play well with "their" community. Just consider what we are about. Are we about what we aim to achieve or are we about whatever "community" and the interplay with its "adversary" the Foundation? I do care about what we aim to achieve, I resent the inattention our objectives get. Thanks, GerardM On 6 March 2017 at 20:07, Rogol Domedonfors &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: