Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-07-15/News and notes

Discuss this story

Why no mention of the other new administrator, User:Anarchyte? Optimist on the run (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately this is a wiki so it is easy to fix such errors and omissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.75.37.119 (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to read the full WMFR letter (rather than my 4-line summary), Sj has translated it into English. The Land (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct that to some extent the discussions about WMFR reflect the participation by some of the members of their board in paid editing? (if inapropriate, I will remove the qy, but it is important to report the actual basis of a dispute.) DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @DGG: - I am not aware of that as a criticism. Of course a huge amount is being said by both sides so I might be in there somewhere. I believe there are serious concerns from community members about (among many other rhings) whether there is appropriate separation between WMFR's lobbying programme and the political career of one of its board members, and also about whether WMFR staff have been fundraising for an endowment without apparent consultation with the community or WMF, but I haven't see paid editing raised as a significant issue per se. The Land (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: You may have been thinking of the Swiss Chapter. 1, 2. --Andreas JN 466 10:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so I was. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I so wish that I was surprised at this development. Not from what I know of WMFR prior to the statements that have been published, including the WMFR letter, but because the hubris shown in said letter by those who have power in that organization is not unique to that affiliate. IMHO, the WMF has been extremely naive about setting up systems that afford individuals power over others, thinking that just because we are all Wikipedians with the best of intentions, that only the best of human nature will always assert itself. Sorry but power corrupts, even the best of people, and not everyone takes on roles for purely altruistic reasons despite wrapping themselves in all the jingoistic terms of the movement. More situations like this current exist in other affiliates, and problems with admins in Wikimedia projects and more situations of this type will occur. Question is, will the Foundation learn from this particular embarrassment enough to make the necessary changes in the future?Thelmadatter (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]