Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-15/News and notes
Discuss this story
The WMF should move to either Virginia or Nebraska, for neutrality reasons. Alternatively, they could move back to their original foundation location. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- That makes a lot of sense — in a parallel universe inhabited by flying pigs with a penchant for wearing pink berets. Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Golly, I didn't realise that we had flying pigs wearing pink berets. You'll have to introduce me to them sometime.
- Also, if we are in a parallel universe, what universe is our universe parallel to? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is a Commons category for flying pigs, but none of them appear to have pink berets. We should address this gap in our coverage. Gamaliel (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So no one is going to mention the elephant in the room? That pushing such half-finished software on the communities like VisualEditor, & creating Superprotect then using it to enforce his will on de.wikipedia cost Erik Möller his job? -- llywrch (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Llywrch, nice theory, but first, we try to keep it to the facts, and second, I think you'd have a great deal of trouble building a circumstantial case to support the theory. I do not believe it, myself. Tony (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- My remark was not about the article, but the lack of comments to it.
And it is either quite naive or very disingenuous to state that Möller had nothing to do with VisualEditor. He was CTO while it was being designed, coded & tested; ultimate responsibility for its failures -- & successes -- are his. What was done reflected, in a general way, what he expected; if it did not, then the people responsible were acting against his wishes, & he should have been fired long ago for gross negligence of his duties.
But back to the lack of comments on this article. Maybe that shows that the community has moved on & it is no longer a sore spot with many Wikipedians. But if it did, I would expect at least one comment defending what Möller did as CTO. More likely, IMHO, most Wikipedians lack any serious interest in the Foundation or its employees -- beyond blaming them for any & all problems. If so, that would be troubling: many Wikipedians feel the Foundation's lack of engagement with the communities harms both, but that could be easily solved (it's amazing how fast people respond when their paycheck is on the line); a lack of engagement by the average Wikipedian with the people & processes that shape the environment they work is not as easily fixed. -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that Erik was never CTO (the last CTO at the Foundation was Danese Cooper) sort of signifies how little you are informed about the Foundation's structure or goings-on. Which then makes this claim seem a little thin.--Jorm (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. CTO is an abbreviation for "chief technology officer", which means he's the guy at the top of the org chart who manages all technology issues. According to his profile, Möller was "Deputy Director and Vice President of Engineering and Product Development", which means he's the guy at the top of the org chart who manages all technology issues. It seems to me these to be synonyms, so saving a few seconds as I type this out while my 8-month-old daughter is taking a nap -- & could wake at any moment -- was foremost in my mind. But you are welcome to disagree with me. Of course someone who didn't work for the Foundation developing technology might think you are splitting hairs over a job title, which then makes your claim a little thin, Jorm. -- llywrch (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Llywrch: It's obvious to all observers that the WMF is going through a major restructuring. Was Moller a casualty of said reorganization? He could have been. Depending on who you ask...it may even have been likely. But will we ever know for sure? I doubt it. Hence, conjecture, which we do not publish. Take that as you will.- Jorm: I have frustratingly little comprehension of what WMF internal organization is like and I've been writing a weekly section on internal news about the same for the past month (and for two stints before that). Short of getting a job there these distinctions are not graspable by us editors, and frankly your dash at Llywrch strikes me as borderline uncivil. ResMar 05:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- "[Moeller] should have been fired long ago for gross negligence of his duties" seems pretty uncivil too (and pretty dissonant, when it's in the same post as "IMHO, most Wikipedians lack any serious interest in the Foundation or its employees -- beyond blaming them for any & all problems") - I notice you not pushing back on that. Is that because you agree with it, and civility enforcement is for people you disagree with, or? Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ironholds: You took what he was saying out of context, then drove five more miles upriver just for good measure.
- Also, on second reading:
- ...most Wikipedians lack any serious interest in the Foundation or its employees -- beyond blaming them for any & all problems...
- Amen. That's good because they shouldn't have to care, but moreso bad because the fact that they don't leads to superprotect et al. We do what we can to bridge the information gap. ResMar 20:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- There's a context in which it is acceptable to call a staffer 'grossly negligent' and advocating they be fired, while bemoaning that nobody seems inclined to work closely with the community? My. What a fascinating place that must be. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ironholds: What was done reflected, in a general way, what he expected; if it did not, then the people responsible were acting against his wishes, & he should have been fired long ago for gross negligence of his duties. That's a description of how jobs work, not an accusation of anything. ResMar 13:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- There's a context in which it is acceptable to call a staffer 'grossly negligent' and advocating they be fired, while bemoaning that nobody seems inclined to work closely with the community? My. What a fascinating place that must be. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- "[Moeller] should have been fired long ago for gross negligence of his duties" seems pretty uncivil too (and pretty dissonant, when it's in the same post as "IMHO, most Wikipedians lack any serious interest in the Foundation or its employees -- beyond blaming them for any & all problems") - I notice you not pushing back on that. Is that because you agree with it, and civility enforcement is for people you disagree with, or? Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. CTO is an abbreviation for "chief technology officer", which means he's the guy at the top of the org chart who manages all technology issues. According to his profile, Möller was "Deputy Director and Vice President of Engineering and Product Development", which means he's the guy at the top of the org chart who manages all technology issues. It seems to me these to be synonyms, so saving a few seconds as I type this out while my 8-month-old daughter is taking a nap -- & could wake at any moment -- was foremost in my mind. But you are welcome to disagree with me. Of course someone who didn't work for the Foundation developing technology might think you are splitting hairs over a job title, which then makes your claim a little thin, Jorm. -- llywrch (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that Erik was never CTO (the last CTO at the Foundation was Danese Cooper) sort of signifies how little you are informed about the Foundation's structure or goings-on. Which then makes this claim seem a little thin.--Jorm (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- My remark was not about the article, but the lack of comments to it.
