3 ms·

I see your point, but the last paragraphs of the article painted a different scenario; one where the self-governing bodies were unable to address the skillfully

by eecc 7y ago

I see your point, but the last paragraphs of the article painted a different scenario; one where the self-governing bodies were unable to address the skillfully borderline actions - where each one individually is within rule and custom, but as a whole are an act of harassment- of a malicious yet respected actor. Fascinating... there are several historical examples of “revolutionary” bodies that succumbed to these dynamics. Curious to see if there’s some layman’s literature on the subject

PavlovsCat 7y ago
not quite what you are wondering about, but FWIW this bit from the article > “The community is currently blaming the foundation for their own mess, in my opinion,” he wrote, “which was caused by our abject failure to develop procedures to enforce civility without Foundation intervention.” reminded me of something Gustav Landauer said: > You don’t know what order with freedom means! You only know what revolt against oppression is! You don’t know that the rod, discipline, violence, the state and government can only be sustained because of you and because of your lack of socially creative powers that develop order within liberty!
nullc 7y ago
That is a claim being made, but it doesn't appear to be one that is actually supported by the facts. In this case, the editor in question had a longstanding dispute with Wikimedia connected party (a party whom, had, in fact been sanctioned by the community for their actions). I understand that monarchy is now in fashion in communities, but the arguments for democracy in its various forms as opposed to various kinds of dictatorships remain strong enough that I'd want to see some pretty good evidence that self governance isn't a good trade-off. I don't think that anyone would argue that community self-governance won't make errors, all systems of governance will. The abject failure of centrally moderated large web communities certainly do not argue for that approach. [Of particular interest: this case has all the marks of having received attention through influence (the banned user had a longstanding dispute with a WMF connected party who also quit the project at the same time)-- maybe that actually wasn't a factor here but WMF has not been forthcoming even TO the arbcom in private with a detailed justification for this actions. As a result of the apparent of impropriety and the largely unexplained secrecy it doesn't make for a particularly good argument that it's actually fixing a failure.]
- nullc 7y ago
  > having received attention through influence To clarify in case this gets read as a greater accusation than I intended: I have some personal experience potentially similar to the persons involved in the potential conflict of interest in this case: My partner was previously chair of the Wikimedia foundation board. I was made uncomfortable on a number of occasions by staff whom didn't otherwise know me from Adam being unusually responsive to me compared to other contributors with similar or greater community standing but less luminous connections. ... and this happened even though no one asked for it and though I tried to carefully avoid invoking it. No explicit corruption is needed to end up with an undue and improper influence, that's just how people work. I addressed it by reducing my involvement. I can only imagine that now-- with greater distance between WMF staff and the community since many of the old time community originated staff left during Lila's tenure as ED-- that this sort of issue is even worse, since staff members that knew me as a community member didn't act that way as far as I could tell.
- eecc 7y ago
  Hmm, I’m just a bystander. I’m not making any claim, just noting to the parent post that the article does indeed report two scenarios (and frankly there may be even more at play, simultaneously.) I’m not into monarchies nor do I think most do, sounds like a bit of a straw man... Just a passing observation: looks like several bottom-up movements, revolutions, alternative “emergent communities” tend to leave enough leeway for manipulative actors to play with the new weak norms without the rest of the community noticing how they’re being played. I’m curious if there are studies on the subject
nullc 7y ago
FWIW: The arbcom has now issued a statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Open_letter_from_the_Arbitration_Committee_to_the_WMF_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...
- belorn 7y ago
  Thank you. That gives a bit more information about the scale. Two bureaucrats (out of 20), 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk has already resigned, and now 4 out of 9 members of ArbCom is planning to resign.
- eecc 7y ago
  Very well worded.

by eecc 7y ago

PavlovsCat 7y ago

not quite what you are wondering about, but FWIW this bit from the article > “The community is currently blaming the foundation for their own mess, in my opinion,” he wrote, “which was caused by our abject failure to develop procedures to enforce civility without Foundation intervention.” reminded me of something Gustav Landauer said: > You don’t know what order with freedom means! You only know what revolt against oppression is! You don’t know that the rod, discipline, violence, the state and government can only be sustained because of you and because of your lack of socially creative powers that develop order within liberty!

nullc 7y ago

That is a claim being made, but it doesn't appear to be one that is actually supported by the facts. In this case, the editor in question had a longstanding dispute with Wikimedia connected party (a party whom, had, in fact been sanctioned by the community for their actions). I understand that monarchy is now in fashion in communities, but the arguments for democracy in its various forms as opposed to various kinds of dictatorships remain strong enough that I'd want to see some pretty good evidence that self governance isn't a good trade-off. I don't think that anyone would argue that community self-governance won't make errors, all systems of governance will. The abject failure of centrally moderated large web communities certainly do not argue for that approach. [Of particular interest: this case has all the marks of having received attention through influence (the banned user had a longstanding dispute with a WMF connected party who also quit the project at the same time)-- maybe that actually wasn't a factor here but WMF has not been forthcoming even TO the arbcom in private with a detailed justification for this actions. As a result of the apparent of impropriety and the largely unexplained secrecy it doesn't make for a particularly good argument that it's actually fixing a failure.]

nullc 7y ago
> having received attention through influence To clarify in case this gets read as a greater accusation than I intended: I have some personal experience potentially similar to the persons involved in the potential conflict of interest in this case: My partner was previously chair of the Wikimedia foundation board. I was made uncomfortable on a number of occasions by staff whom didn't otherwise know me from Adam being unusually responsive to me compared to other contributors with similar or greater community standing but less luminous connections. ... and this happened even though no one asked for it and though I tried to carefully avoid invoking it. No explicit corruption is needed to end up with an undue and improper influence, that's just how people work. I addressed it by reducing my involvement. I can only imagine that now-- with greater distance between WMF staff and the community since many of the old time community originated staff left during Lila's tenure as ED-- that this sort of issue is even worse, since staff members that knew me as a community member didn't act that way as far as I could tell.
eecc 7y ago
Hmm, I’m just a bystander. I’m not making any claim, just noting to the parent post that the article does indeed report two scenarios (and frankly there may be even more at play, simultaneously.) I’m not into monarchies nor do I think most do, sounds like a bit of a straw man... Just a passing observation: looks like several bottom-up movements, revolutions, alternative “emergent communities” tend to leave enough leeway for manipulative actors to play with the new weak norms without the rest of the community noticing how they’re being played. I’m curious if there are studies on the subject

nullc 7y ago

FWIW: The arbcom has now issued a statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Open_letter_from_the_Arbitration_Committee_to_the_WMF_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...

belorn 7y ago
Thank you. That gives a bit more information about the scale. Two bureaucrats (out of 20), 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk has already resigned, and now 4 out of 9 members of ArbCom is planning to resign.
eecc 7y ago
Very well worded.