Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is Fred Bauder losing it?
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors
Pages: 1, 2
thekohser
What do you think?

QUOTE
[Gendergap] Category:Women in sexually appealing postures
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@fairpoint.net)
Tue Feb 8 15:01:29 UTC 2011


I've created Category:Women in sexually appealing postures on Commons.

This is a matter of correctly classifying the sort of pictures we have
discussed here which have this quality, sometimes inappropriately.

Category:Men in sexually appealing postures is obviously required also.

In terms of the category tree on Commons Category:Women in sexually
appealing postures is one of four branches of Categories: Women,Posture,
and People by setting

Category:Girls by posture (birth – 13 (puberty))
Category:Adolescent girls by posture (13 - 17 years)
Category:Women by posture (18 - 59 years)
Category:Old women by posture

I think this exercise should serve to clarify the nature of the images we
are hosting and should be an aid to further discussion.

Fred
Jon Awbrey
Hide your dotters

Jon blink.gif
EricBarbour
He lost it a long time ago. Problem is, he knows just what kind of insane ideas to bring to WP,
so they'll get approved. Sick community.
Zoloft
Best entry in the GenderGap list:
"Maybe we need a special rule for this mailing list: after every five
posts you have to take a break, step away, and try to convince a woman
you know that they should be contributing to Wikipedia. After they
make their first edit, come back to the mailing list... smile.gif

-- phoebe"
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 14th February 2011, 10:16am) *

Best entry in the GenderGap list:

"Maybe we need a special rule for this mailing list: after every five posts you have to take a break, step away, and try to convince a woman you know that they should be contributing to Wikipedia. After they make their first edit, come back to the mailing list … smile.gif

— phoebe"



Oh wait, I think I hear the doorbell ringing …

Jon tongue.gif
Kelly Martin
Wikipedia has never had any coherent idea how to categorize things. In 2005 or thereabouts, a group of librarians offered to help Wikipedia develop a more rational approach to categorization then the one they use. They were rebuffed with extreme vigor, an action that has certainly contributed to librarians' general dislike and distrust of Wikipedia.
Ottava
We had 4 active females in the IRC room last night. I linked it. They universally thought Fred was an idiot.


If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.
melloden
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 14th February 2011, 5:02pm) *

We had 4 active females in the IRC room last night. I linked it. They universally thought Fred was an idiot.


If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.


Remind me again ... wasn't Fred the one who allegedly slept with one of his coworkers? Or something like that, and he got disbarred or whatever?
Abd
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 14th February 2011, 12:02pm) *
We had 4 active females in the IRC room last night. I linked it. They universally thought Fred was an idiot.
Active? What kind of active? And how would Ottava know?
QUOTE
If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.
Ottava's concept of all problems: Bad Person. Get Rid of Bad Person, all will be well. Repeat as Needed.

Eventually people figure this out, and get rid of Ottava.

He is not, in fact, the Cause of All Problems, but, when he's around, the others seem ... minor.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 14th February 2011, 12:02pm) *

If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.


Yeah, and then they could rename it Fembotopedia, because that would be all that's left to edit the damn thing.

Jon tongue.gif
thekohser
QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 14th February 2011, 12:23pm) *

Remind me again ... wasn't Fred the one who allegedly slept with one of his coworkers? Or something like that, and he got disbarred or whatever?


Worse, or whatever.
Peter Damian
I think they have the right idea.

Amazing that Joe Reagle, who has written a whole book about Wikipedia, claims never to have noticed 'Wikipi-tan'.


QUOTE

those of you who know me might remember that there is one, more illogical, thing that gets under my skin more than almost anything else: Wikipe-tan and her short skirt and thigh-high stockings. Why, WHY is it ok that we even joke about that being our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture that permeates a lot of collaborative sites these days. It doesn't even occur to a lot of men that that could be off-putting. They certainly don't mean it to be off-putting. And they're a little wounded when someone points out that, well, it *is*.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000027.html


QUOTE

I think the segment of the female population who would actively seek out participation in a site where Wikipe-tan was a frequently-seen icon is very, very small. I'm particularly concerned about one of the "examples" at the bottom labeled "Gothic Lolita Wikipe-tan, which is entirely the wrong message.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000051.html


QUOTE

Yeah, it's total boy zone material!!

As a woman who grew up in boys clubs - dabbling in the "gaming" culture as a teenager (yes, Dungeons and Dragons, Advanced, thanks!) etc, I've seen that stupid anime Sailor Moon wanna-be cartoon in a million different ways and I hated it as a teenager and I hate it as an adult. A teenage boys dream, that's what I always saw it as.

I was talking about my experience at the Wikipedia 10 event here in DC - I compared it to a "gaming convention." Not every guy is into anime and coding who is a Wikipedian, but, when the "mascot" came on the screen during a video most people (most = men) cheered, except, well, me, and the women from the Library of Congress who didn't seem to impressed.

But, I also don't see that mascot used too frequently, perhaps I'm hanging out in the right circles.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000052.html


QUOTE

Joseph Reagle joseph.2008 at reagle.org
I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000067.html
Jon Awbrey
Re: Wikipe-tan

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 14th February 2011, 1:43pm) *

Amazing that Joe Reagle, who has written a whole book about Wikipedia, claims never to have noticed ‘Wikipi-tan’.


Not all that amazing —

As a general rule, the less people know about Wikipedia the more they like it.

Jon tongue.gif
Peter Damian
Another insightful comment about hardcore pornography here

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000443.html

And a useful link to an essay by Herostratus. Note the attempts to censor what he is saying (from the opponents of 'censorship' of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398752398

Perhaps we were too harsh about Herostratus. He is saying that hardcore pornography is misogynistic. I might add, most pornography is misogynistic.
Jagärdu
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th February 2011, 6:42pm) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 14th February 2011, 12:23pm) *

Remind me again ... wasn't Fred the one who allegedly slept with one of his coworkers? Or something like that, and he got disbarred or whatever?


Worse, or whatever.


Quite the he said she said situation. I'd love to see the court transcript because I've having a very hard time imagining the two women sounding more credible in this situation. The new girlfriend and soon to be ex-wife in the same room talking to the husband's lawyer on the phone ... the lawyer proceeds to tell the soon to be ex-wife confidential information then attempts to solicit her and the girlfriend (new girlfriend of this woman's soon to be ex-husband) for money? If true it would support the lunatic claim, but its just rather hard to believe. Then again I don't live in Colorado ...
thekohser
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Mon 14th February 2011, 2:54pm) *

Quite the he said she said situation. I'd love to see the court transcript because I've having a very hard time imagining the two women sounding more credible in this situation. The new girlfriend and soon to be ex-wife in the same room talking to the husband's lawyer on the phone ... the lawyer proceeds to tell the soon to be ex-wife confidential information then attempts to solicit her and the girlfriend (new girlfriend of this woman's soon to be ex-husband) for money? If true it would support the lunatic claim, but its just rather hard to believe. Then again I don't live in Colorado ...

So, you're putting your hunches above the written opinion of state supreme court justices?

That's interesting.

What are your credentials?
Somey
At the risk of playing Fred's Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Fred is setting up these categories merely to prove the obvious point, which is that Wikipedia is incapable of dealing with the porn situation on its own? Given that so many Wikipedians have completely missed this point, maybe Fred thinks he knows the magical secret to ending (or at least putting a dent in) Wikipedian "cluelessness" on this issue. He'll fail, of course, but knowing that in advance hasn't stopped him in the past.

I have to say, these latest developments in the "Wikipedia Needs Women" saga are threatening to move it up into the "classic" level as far as WP Silliness History is concerned. Apparently they seem to think they can solve the "problem" by giving themselves even more venues than they already have in which they can demonstrate why the "problem" exists.
Sxeptomaniac
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 14th February 2011, 11:33am) *

Another insightful comment about hardcore pornography here

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000443.html

And a useful link to an essay by Herostratus. Note the attempts to censor what he is saying (from the opponents of 'censorship' of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398752398

Perhaps we were too harsh about Herostratus. He is saying that hardcore pornography is misogynistic. I might add, most pornography is misogynistic.

I agree. Very insightful, which is obviously why various porn protectionists are out to kill it any way possible. They couldn't get it deleted outright, so instead they'll try to change it to the point that it's unrecognizable and doesn't say anything at all.
Jagärdu
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th February 2011, 8:01pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Mon 14th February 2011, 2:54pm) *

Quite the he said she said situation. I'd love to see the court transcript because I've having a very hard time imagining the two women sounding more credible in this situation. The new girlfriend and soon to be ex-wife in the same room talking to the husband's lawyer on the phone ... the lawyer proceeds to tell the soon to be ex-wife confidential information then attempts to solicit her and the girlfriend (new girlfriend of this woman's soon to be ex-husband) for money? If true it would support the lunatic claim, but its just rather hard to believe. Then again I don't live in Colorado ...

So, you're putting your hunches above the written opinion of state supreme court justices?

That's interesting.

What are your credentials?


Huh? Never said any such thing. I said, from reading the available summary, the entire thing *seems* unbelievable, and would like to therefore see the court transcripts. It would be interesting to know what was said in court to make it seem less unbelievable. That said, what type of credentials are you looking for?
carbuncle
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 14th February 2011, 8:46pm) *

At the risk of playing Fred's Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Fred is setting up these categories merely to prove the obvious point, which is that Wikipedia is incapable of dealing with the porn situation on its own? Given that so many Wikipedians have completely missed this point, maybe Fred thinks he knows the magical secret to ending (or at least putting a dent in) Wikipedian "cluelessness" on this issue. He'll fail, of course, but knowing that in advance hasn't stopped him in the past.

So you're saying that Fred is just looking for a happy ending?
Gruntled
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Mon 14th February 2011, 11:15pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th February 2011, 8:01pm) *

What are your credentials?

what type of credentials are you looking for?

We don't require credentials. All we ask is that contributors source all their statements to verifiable and reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. If they've done that, they've proved their statements so their credentials are irrelevant. If a judge, be he or she never so eminent, cannot provide a source, then his or her opinion is worthless. Now court transcripts are reliable, but they are primary sources hence are inherently less valuable than reliable secondary ones such as newspapers. And of course if Jagärdu and others cannot see them, they are unverifiable hence worthless.
dtobias
Under normal Wikipedia policy, wouldn't one need a reliable source to the effect that a particular posture was "sexually attractive" (to whom?), rather than relying upon one's own subjective judgment?
thekohser
QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 15th February 2011, 1:01pm) *

Under normal Wikipedia policy, wouldn't one need a reliable source to the effect that a particular posture was "sexually attractive" (to whom?), rather than relying upon one's own subjective judgment?

Funny, Dan -- I thought the exact same thing.
Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 14th February 2011, 4:46pm) *
At the risk of playing Fred's Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Fred is setting up these categories merely to prove the obvious point, which is that Wikipedia is incapable of dealing with the porn situation on its own? Given that so many Wikipedians have completely missed this point, maybe Fred thinks he knows the magical secret to ending (or at least putting a dent in) Wikipedian "cluelessness" on this issue.
That's certainly how I read it - trying to do the whole Jonathon Swift thing. Of course, Wikipedians are probably more amenable to the idea of eating their own children than were the eighteenth century Irish.
HRIP7
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 15th February 2011, 6:52pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 14th February 2011, 4:46pm) *
At the risk of playing Fred's Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Fred is setting up these categories merely to prove the obvious point, which is that Wikipedia is incapable of dealing with the porn situation on its own? Given that so many Wikipedians have completely missed this point, maybe Fred thinks he knows the magical secret to ending (or at least putting a dent in) Wikipedian "cluelessness" on this issue.
That's certainly how I read it - trying to do the whole Jonathon Swift thing. Of course, Wikipedians are probably more amenable to the idea of eating their own children than were the eighteenth century Irish.

Fred supported Herostratus's essay at ANI, so I doubt he is in favour of turning Commons into the world's biggest collection of images of women in sexually appealing poses. I think what he is trying to do is highlight the sheer disproportionate mass of such images by creating a category. Whether that is the best way of addressing the problem is debatable, but one woman on the Gendergap list pointed out recently that going by Commons coverage, women wearing jean shorts seem to have a notable aversion to wearing tops.

Herostratus' essay was restored to project space by Jimbo. Cyclopia is distinguishing himself on the essay's talk page by arguing that it is culturally biased to assume that women in porn movies don't enjoy receiving facials. blink.gif
Jon Awbrey
Seriously, anyone who has spent any time at all observing Wikipediot Culture knows that no meaningful change on the Hostile Work Environment or Child Exploitation fronts will ever come out of this GenderGaffe List. The discussion has already veered off in a direction that departs from the ulterior motives of the ED, and she's begun making rumbles about moderating the proceedings back in line with the usual sort of Fonzie scheme.

Jon tongue.gif
Milton Roe
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 13th February 2011, 8:29pm) *

What do you think?

QUOTE
[Gendergap] Category:Women in sexually appealing postures
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@fairpoint.net)
Tue Feb 8 15:01:29 UTC 2011


I've created Category:Women in sexually appealing postures on Commons.

This is a matter of correctly classifying the sort of pictures we have
discussed here which have this quality, sometimes inappropriately.

Category:Men in sexually appealing postures is obviously required also.
Fred


Here's one, ladies:

Image

Yes, I too, immediately throught of: Fred Garvin, MALE PROSTITUTE! ohmy.gif

You have to watch a 20 second commercial to see the SNL Ackroyd bit these days, but it's still worth it. Watch for the sexually appealing postures. They all need cataloging on WP.

http://www.mefeedia.com/tv/10888392
EricBarbour
All of this really needs to be brought to the attention of well-know feminists.
Some of them will probably have a strong desire to strangle certain Wikipedi-boys,
especially after seeing the talkpage of Herostratus's essay.

I may have been wrong about Herostratus and his role in the porn arguments and
the WP pedophilia-article scene, but I still think he's a gadfly and a flake.....if he
keeps going like this, he'll lose every argument. And eventually, some asshole
admin will ban him as a "so-there" punishment.

Wikipedia is a sick little boy's club. All this squabbling will lead nowhere.
They like their free porn, they want it, they'll find a way to keep it.

Jayen466 said it best:
QUOTE
The fact is that most Wikipedians do not have children, or partners, and most
people out there in the real world do.

MZMcBride
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th February 2011, 1:42pm) *
QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 14th February 2011, 12:23pm) *
Remind me again ... wasn't Fred the one who allegedly slept with one of his coworkers? Or something like that, and he got disbarred or whatever?
Worse, or whatever.
I imagine you have a very interesting bookmarks bar.
Gruntled
QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 15th February 2011, 6:01pm) *

Under normal Wikipedia policy, wouldn't one need a reliable source to the effect that a particular posture was "sexually attractive" (to whom?), rather than relying upon one's own subjective judgment?

Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to apply to Commons. There's not the slightest requirement to justify adding a category to a photo, and requests for deletions of categories are quite rare. Indeed, if Wikipedia policy applied you'd need to have evidence that a photo does indeed represent whomever or whatever it says it does. If I post a photo allegedly of say a junior French government minister on Commons, and it looks plausible, it's massively unlikely that anyone will query it or demand proof. Of course, if it is then used on the French Wikipedia, it may get queried there.
carbuncle
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Wed 16th February 2011, 10:08am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 15th February 2011, 6:01pm) *

Under normal Wikipedia policy, wouldn't one need a reliable source to the effect that a particular posture was "sexually attractive" (to whom?), rather than relying upon one's own subjective judgment?

Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to apply to Commons. There's not the slightest requirement to justify adding a category to a photo, and requests for deletions of categories are quite rare. Indeed, if Wikipedia policy applied you'd need to have evidence that a photo does indeed represent whomever or whatever it says it does. If I post a photo allegedly of say a junior French government minister on Commons, and it looks plausible, it's massively unlikely that anyone will query it or demand proof. Of course, if it is then used on the French Wikipedia, it may get queried there.

Cue a frenzied search of images of French junior ministers... wink.gif
thekohser
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 16th February 2011, 4:46am) *

I imagine you have a very interesting bookmarks bar.

While my bookmarks are fairly awesome, links to Fred Bauder's track record are not a part of them. No, Google does a nice enough job returning hits on "Fred Bauder" coupled with "Colorado" and "supreme court".

I do have a collection of public links, though, if you're interested in browsing.
Jon Awbrey
I see that this thread has been moved to the Editors Forum, no doubt by way of protecting Freddy's good name.

I guess I'll create a thread dedicated to the doings on the GenderGaffe List and copy my posts there. Maybe one of our obliging Mods could move the rest of the posts that don't mention Freddy's personal details to that thread?

Gratia In Futuro …

Jon dry.gif
Tarc
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 14th February 2011, 2:33pm) *

I might add, most pornography is misogynistic.


rolleyes.gif

Did you grow up in a World According to Garp style household?
Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 16th February 2011, 12:17pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 14th February 2011, 2:33pm) *

I might add, most pornography is misogynistic.


rolleyes.gif

Did you grow up in a World According to Garp style household?
While I don't think I've done a representative survey with a large enough sample size to draw definitive conclusions, I would say that most mainstream porn aimed at heterosexual men--which I suspect is a large percentage of porn--is indeed misogynistic. That's not to say that porn is inherently misogynistic (a claim that I think would have better justified your "Garp" retort), but a high percentage of it turns out that way.
Ottava
I find it interesting how half of the rabid ranting here is anger of me saying that porn isn't educational nor useful for the other projects.

Just lovely.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 16th February 2011, 12:11pm) *

While I don't think I've done a representative survey with a large enough sample size to draw definitive conclusions, I would say that most mainstream porn aimed at heterosexual men--which I suspect is a large percentage of porn--is indeed misogynistic. That's not to say that porn is inherently misogynistic (a claim that I think would have better justified your "Garp" retort), but a higher percentage of it turns out that way.

Obviously you have read libertarian female Wendy McElroy's A Woman's Right to Pornography. No, she was never in the porn industry.

This article says 30% of internet porn users are women. I've seen similar figures from other studies, and they're all hgher than the fraction of WP editors that are women! biggrin.gif

Okay, you're going to say women undoubtedly choose a different kind of visual/net porn, just as they choose a different style of print porn. Sure. But WP only offers one style of WP politics, and if you don't like it, you're out-of-policy. And will be blocked for having an incorrect POV. Unless you have polished many, many knobs....

It's the Blimp, Frank's Robot Video xtranormal series of intros-to-WP really needs to be more widely available. If he can get some academic people to discuss it, he can start a little WP article on it. smile.gif
Jon Awbrey
Ahem … 501(‍c‍)3 …

Jon dry.gif
Ottava
With news like this, I only have to wonder if the sheer massive amount of people protecting the porn really want as much reckless porn as possible because they want Wikipedia closed.
Kelly Martin
There's porn for women on the net. Just search for "slash". smile.gif
Sxeptomaniac
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Tue 15th February 2011, 4:49pm) *

Herostratus' essay was restored to project space by Jimbo. Cyclopia is distinguishing himself on the essay's talk page by arguing that it is culturally biased to assume that women in porn movies don't enjoy receiving facials. blink.gif

Weird and a bit annoying, since to discount that viewpoint is completely biased against a large number of people who DO find acts like that misogynistic.

However, that "Egg Centric" guy is just downright creepy, and even a little scary. One, anyone who's even followed some world news should know that human trafficking is a very serious problem in parts of Asia and Africa. Secondly, that "plenty" of people want to be prostitutes is just delusional. While I have certainly read of some high-dollar prostitutes who chose that life, the reality is that many more literally have no choice.
Sylar
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 14th February 2011, 5:04am) *

He lost it a long time ago. Problem is, he knows just what kind of insane ideas to bring to WP,
so they'll get approved. Sick community.

Interesting. I take it you are homosexual?
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Sylar @ Wed 16th February 2011, 10:27pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 14th February 2011, 5:04am) *

He lost it a long time ago. Problem is, he knows just what kind of insane ideas to bring to WP,
so they'll get approved. Sick community.


Interesting. I take it you are homosexual?


Sylar,

Let us caution you, once and once only, that WR is not an online dating service.*

Jon hrmph.gif

* Not that there's anything wrong with that.
HRIP7
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 17th February 2011, 4:04am) *

QUOTE(Sylar @ Wed 16th February 2011, 10:27pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 14th February 2011, 5:04am) *

He lost it a long time ago. Problem is, he knows just what kind of insane ideas to bring to WP,
so they'll get approved. Sick community.


Interesting. I take it you are homosexual?


Sylar,

Let us caution you, once and once only, that WR is not an online dating service.*

Jon hrmph.gif

* Not that there's anything wrong with that.


laugh.gif
EricBarbour
tongue.gif

I'm wondering if Crossmr is a Korean demon..........he tried to get Herostratus banned today, with spectacular lack of success.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 19th February 2011, 10:32pm) *

I'm wondering if Crossmr is a Korean demon … he tried to get Herostratus banned today, with spectacular lack of success.


Water seeks it own level — you can bet that Wikipedia will be back in the toilet before long, no matter what anyone does in the short term.

Jon tongue.gif
Peter Damian
QUOTE
Is there something wrong with it
> being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only
> one
> confused about this.
>
> MZMcBride

There is plenty wrong with messing with us. This is hardly the first
time. I doubt advancing the project is on your agenda.

Fred
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/064255.html
Somey
Hmm, Fred's definitely having some issues, assuming posts like that aren't just his idea of a joke...

Meanwhile, in that same thread, which is ostensibly about the WMF's decision to hire a so-called "storyteller" as an actual salaried position, there's this post from someone named "Jason Donovan":
QUOTE
Wikimedia Foundation seems to be turning into another non-profit bent on social outreach. The internal structure appears to be mutating into something very corporate, from the constant direction of consultants/analysts to expansion into emerging markets. They all seem to resemble any other corporation trying to expand, overlooking that fact that the actual product is governed and maintained by an active community which is responsible for most of the content.

One look at the current staff page points to the flawed vision of the internal structure, with titles like chief talent and culture officer, which sounds more like a job from a futuristic science fiction or even a cult, a successful one of course. The fundraising part of the staff seems to be under the community department, communications seems to be under global development. There seems to be only one person in the finance and administration department.

Chief propaganda officer doesn't seem to be far behind, unless you prefer raconteur which is more or less the same title.

Mr. Donovan seems to understand the situation better than most, I'd have to say, aside from the fact that the internal structure (and intent) was always very corporate.

Earlier in the thread, high-ranking WMF bete noir Michael Snow wrote this:
QUOTE
If people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather than creating drama about things they aren't.

Sadly for Mr. Snow, people mostly do understand how collaboration on a wiki doesn't work, which is why so many of them don't "accept the projects" as anything more than a handy means of figuring out what their kids are talking about when they ask them to buy them video games.

More importantly, the "drama" has little or nothing to do with what the projects "are" or "aren't." When you assemble and operate the biggest anonymous ideological battlefield in the world, it's just one of the things you're going to end up with.
Peter Damian
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th March 2011, 10:09am) *

Mr. Donovan seems to understand the situation better than most, I'd have to say, aside from the fact that the internal structure (and intent) was always very corporate.


Yes (but shouldn't your post be in the other thread? This is the Fred Bauder 'where have all the marbles gone' thread).
taiwopanfob
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th March 2011, 10:09am) *

Earlier in the thread, high-ranking WMF bete noir Michael Snow wrote this:
QUOTE
If people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather than creating drama about things they aren't.


I think the best answer to this is from one "The Mono" in the same thread:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/064263.html

None of these erstwhile managers significantly participate any longer (if they ever did at all) -- no doubt due to nasty emails from Legal -- so how can they possibly know what they are talking about?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.