Talk:Public speakers/Archives/2009

Rank order recommendation

Right now, people seem to be simply adding themselves to the "bottom" of the various lists on this page. This is one way to organize lists (first in, top of list; last in, bottom of list); however, it lacks much utility for the reader. Might I make two suggestions?

1. Arrange the lists in alphabetical order by surname, and where that may be lacking, order by User name. (No comment on the marketability attractiveness of pseudonyms to outside agencies who may be seeking a formal speaker.)
2. Attempt to contact all of the listed parties who have not updated their listing in over 6 months to determine if they are still marketable available as public speakers. Those who are not ought to be removed from the list.

Let this page be open for discussion on this matter for a period of 14 days (until September 2, 2009). If we can reach consensus, or there is no opposition, I will be happy to make the suggested changes. -- Thekohser 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing your words on the foundation-l list, you are not very well suited to do anything here. Regards, Yann 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Yann. While I'll ignore for the moment the "no personal attacks" line that you've approached, if not crossed, I am curious to know what it is about striving for a more accountable, more professional Foundation that you find ill-suited for work on Wikimedia Meta? -- Thekohser 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire to update and maintain this page, but I do mildly object to being labeled as "marketable." To me, advancing free culture is not a business model but rather the communication of really important ideas. Sincerely, GChriss 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that marketability is irrelevant to activity. Swatjester 22:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you all have preferred the word "serviceable"? "Available"? I think that anyone attempting to make a business model out of their public speaking, marketed via this list (Jimmy Wales excepted), is likely to meet with speedy disappointment. Heck, this page only received 212 page views in August 2009. -- Thekohser 04:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So an old pickup truck is serviceable, golf balls are marketable, and speakers are available. It's the overall tone that bothers me. GChriss 13:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well unless you want me to speak on the subject: Wikimedia projects the biggest waste of time in my life .... please remove me from the list. Waerth 16:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion didn't go very well. And it didn't arrive at a consensus to remove folks from the list, not that I can see... so doing that probably was way premature. But the ideas expressed: that putting things into some order, and of periodically seeing if folks are still interested and removing them without any big fan fare if they are not... those are good ideas. Perhaps now that the messenger has been shot (it's just a flesh wound... I think) maybe it could be restarted? What IS the best ordering? most likely to be desired as a speaker might be a good order for readers but it seems likely to spur some hard feelings about who is more popular, so alpha does seem a good compromise to me. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hey guys - I have to kind of laugh that we're including stalwart critics of our entire project as "public speakers" on our behalf on any topic. heh - Planet Wikimedia has higher standards for the blogs it includes in the aggregator ("I feel pretty strongly that Planet Wikimedia should be a positive and uplifting outreach tool, showing in a good light the work of good people. It should be something that we can be proud to show to people who don't know much about Wikimedia, giving them a glimpse into some of the blog conversations about our good work. It should not be a place for "wikidrama" - Jimbo) If the purpose of this speaker's list is not as a "positive and uplifting outreach tool, showing in a good light the work of good people" then what purpose does it serve? I think once a person has written prolifically about their low regard for Wikipedia/Wikimedia's community, values, principles and vision, and/or some sort of severe community sanction, then they aren't the best candidates to be held forth to speak about the Wikipedia/Wikimedia project. It's just a teensy bit absurd. --David Shankbone 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So are you proposing a specific criterion or criteria? ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm expressing surprise that there is none. Who would be looking for these people, and do their contributions and communal standings lend to their being on a list that any casual viewer is going to assume is somehow Wikimedia sanctioned. "These are our people; they represent what we do and the values we generally subscribe to." Isn't that what this list is for, or is it just a hodge-podge of all people with user names who like to pontificate about all things Wikimedia? Its purpose isn't obvious if we are including people who have actively worked against much of what we do. We could be talking about a number of people who could sign up. How about Seth Finkelstein? --David Shankbone 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying. I think some criteria are needed, both for inclusion and for removal of entries. Also for guidance on what sorts of things to include and what sort to omit. However I'm not sure I'd favor a blanket exclusion of those who are critical of the projects, that's not the wiki way. Still, drafting some criteria for discussion might be a way to get started. Perhaps a subpage? Want to take a cut at it? ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Nah, I'll leave it up to the graybeards of Public speakers, but it's an interesting menagerie. I particularly wanted to lend a caution that it looks sanctioned. I used to point people to both my Wikinews credentials on that site, and to my VP of Wikimedia New York City, Inc. listing on this one. --David Shankbone 03:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • My sense of humor severely tempted me to add myself to the list now, with an edit summary of "accept nomination". Regrettably, I'm not much interested in professional public speaking - it seems personally not worth the multitude of hassles. Though the occasional times I've given a speech or been on a conference panel, I've been told I'm an interesting and insightful speaker. Nonetheless, to head off any potential future trolling via strawman, let me definitely state I have no interest in signing up. -- Seth Finkelstein 18:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • My sense of humor kind of had hoped you would sign up; regardless, your name isn't a strawman, but to show that there is a need for reasonable limits for those who are presented as speaking on behalf of Wikimedia projects. I used your name as a well-known loather of Wikimedia, but I could have used a variety of others--Robert Mugabe, Squeaky Fromme, Pat Richardson--to denote that we have no standards in whom we advertise as available to speak for us publicly. --David Shankbone 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Purged list of non-responsive / idle speakers

In an effort to maintain and keep current this highly relevant list to outside parties who may need to contact public speakers about Wikimedia projects, per the Talk page discussion above, I have removed from the table any speakers who have not shown activity here in over 6 months and have failed to respond to a direct e-mail plea for updates and confirmation of continued availability. If any of the removed parties are absolutely known to still be available and eager to participate as a public speaker (Jimbo Wales comes to mind as a possible one), feel free to re-add them to the table. The removed parties included:

• Jimbo Wales
• Llywrch
• Kurt Jansson
• JakobVoss
• Elian
• Anthere
• ~Pyb
• Yann
• Cool Cat
• Angela

I hope this wasn't too onerous a decision, but I am inclined to keep this list current and active, to facilitate prompt and ready participation by speakers for interested inquiries. -- Thekohser 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely obvious that this is a provocation. I reverted this change and will block Thekosher when he repeats this. GerardM 10:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wales? He spoke at Wikimania less than 6 months ago. Same for Angela; not sure about the rest. How do you exactly gather your "activity" info? MarianoC 11:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page here? It seems that we need some consensus on standards about who is included, how long they stay, what their blurbs can say, whether there is a formal requirement for notification every so often in order to stay on the list, and the like, because the edit warring here has to stop. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello,

Please note I have full-protected this page for 1 week due to edit warring. Please work out your differences on the talk page rather than reverting each other unproductively. Admins are reminded that although they have the ability to edit the page, they should not (unless such changes are entirely unrelated to the edit warring). Thanks,  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good move. Several parties were edit warring who ought to know better. While the protection is in place, I suggest a discussion about the goal of the page and the processes for maintaining and updating it as I outlined above. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

When you had followed this fracas, you would have found that thekosher has been blocked for threatening behaviour. Also, it does little good to block in the first place when multiple admins take offence. Thanks, GerardM 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You were edit warring too. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - perhaps I was too circumspect initially.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the page protection. The idea that Greg's efforts here are intended more as provocation than contribution is provocative in itself. No need for the drama, and the page protection puts all of our attention here on the talk page, where it clearly belongs. -Peteforsyth 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Right now the page as it stands is formatted incorrectly, the derogatory comment about theKohser is in a table cell all by itself. I suggest that the formatting be corrected and a more neutrally worded comment be put in the correct column, but since the page is fully protected, I request consensus for this edit before making it. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I already did it. GerardM should know better than to edit war, and then block the person in dispute. The comments about Kohs are completely unnecessary too, so I've removed them prompto and restored the original text. Majorly talk 00:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically I think it was Thogo that blocked, rather than GerardM.... ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that there should only be a user written comment, a positive comment, or no comment. This is something to do with public relations, and it makes us all look very bad for this to make any appearance. Ottava Rima 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Majorly, and I agree with you, Ottava. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is on the list

While this list is hardly relevant, it is the latest place where Mr Kohs finds it necessary to troll around. Removing Jimmy Wales and Angela is an extreme form of provocation. His brand of provocation we can well do without. Given Mr Kohs antics on foundation list, English Wikipedia and now this is part of the problem.

When people consider this edit warring, so be it. It is however not something new, what Mr Kohs is doing. There are in my opinion three ways to move forward. Either we remove Mr Kohs altogether, we keep his self promoting text or we have some kind of approval process for people who are on this list. In my opinion, anyone who speaks at chapter or Wikimedia conferences can be on the list. Anyone who is able to get himself/herself banned from projects they say they have expertise about are certain candidates for removal.

While I can appreciate that some people are not happy about me replacing Mr Kohs advertisement with a "health warning", I think it is no longer acceptable that he advertises for his trolling in any way or form. His stalking of people like Jimmy, Angela has gone too far. As to "I have send people on this list an e-mail to verify their activity" is bogus as I am on this list and he did not send me one. Thanks, GerardM 04:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have consensus for your views. Instead of starting a new section with what is more or less a rant against another user, why not work on the criteria in general? Your second paragraph alludes to this a bit, which is an improvement over the first. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As for "I am on this list and he did not send me one" I am in receipt of an email from Mr. Kohs giving a number of diffs to the Public Speaking page. Those diffs together make up a flurry of activity on September 1, consistent with folk having received emails (or some other notices) about the page causing them to recertify their interest and correct any details... here's a number of them in one diff (to see the individuals who apparently got notified and responded on 1 September, check the history or walk the diffs yourself). Is it perhaps possible that your email went in the spam folder, or was lost for some other technical reason, or was disregarded by you for whatever reason? I'm inclined to take Mr. Kohs at his word that he mailed everyone, and prepared to take you at your word that you personally did not receive same. The two things are not incompatible, but your starting out with an accusation of not being mailed lacks good faith. If you want to put yourself forward as a speaker who speaks positively about the WMF and its projects you should be scrupulously careful in not casting unwarranted aspersions. IMHO anyway. Again, this is not to say that Mr. Kohs taking this cleansing on himself without clear consensus for it first was a good approach, in my view it is not, but please don't indulge in what could be perceived as unwarranted hyperbolic commentary. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttal to GerardM:

Proof that my e-mails were sent to all affected.

The Sept. 17 dates for the e-mails to Gerard, Jimmy, and Angela are simply because I re-forwarded the Sept. 1 e-mails to them, in light of Gerard's misguided opinion. You can see the (2) to indicate this.

I really, really do not appreciate being called a liar (or, the deliverer of "bogus" claims).

Further evidence that my e-mails WERE INDEED sent and received is that various recipients were responding to them, all without incivility or drama:

Civil response #1

Civil response #2

Civil response #3

Civil response #4

Civil response #5

GerardM seems to be the only recipient who has responded with outlandish retaliatory behavior and abuse of admin tools. But, I'm the one who got blocked, and Gerard continues unabated, even blanking contact info for me underneath a page protection status! If you wish to make me out to be the bad guy, that's your prerogative. -- Thekohser 13:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Er...

Continuing an edit war which started when the page was unprotected, by re-reverting when the page is protected, sounds a lot like "abuse of administrator tools in an edit war you are involved in", to be honest.

I performed a partial revert to restore all bar the so-called "positive spin", but a wider discussion about the appropriateness of Gerard's post-protection revert is, in my opinion, merited. I view his revert as an abuse of his administrator tools, if he was aware of the protection (which I believe he was, given he is definitely involved in the dispute that led to the protection).

Daniel (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nobody to war with. Mr Kohs has been banned.

The situation is simple; Mr Kohs has the cutzpah to remove Jimmy Wales and Angela from this list. It is known that he has an ongoing unhealthy attention with the WMF and people who are involved with the WMF. This, and his over the top promotion for himself are sufficient to *restore his removals *ban him (Thogo claimed that priviledge) and *clean up but better remove him from this list. GerardM 05:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He has not been banned. Until his account is indefinitely blocked and ratified by the Meta-Wiki community, he is not banned. Regardless of his possibly-disruptive tactics regarding Jimmy and Angela, he can still validly claim to be a public speaker on Wikimedia-related issues, as he is still a member of the Wikimedia volunteer editing community. Daniel (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

@GerardM: While I see the removal as a bit hasty, it wasn't out of the blue. There was a discussion started and some time went by before it was done, but lack of input from others is not automatic consensus. It would have been better to get formal criteria for inclusion and removal developed first, and until then best not to remove folk, and reversion of that was goodness. But your other actions do not look good at all, they suggest that you think the project should be unwilling to acknowledge criticism. Work to develop standards for inclusion and removal, and work to develop standards for what an entry should and should say. But until then do not edit war, Mr. Kohs has as much right to be listed as you or anyone else does. In fact his credentials as a researcher, as a public speaker, and as an experienced wiki operator are far better than mine or yours. That his opinion is not uniformly positive is healthy for the project. He should be allowed to, within reason and subject to decorum, say what he wishes in his entry, as everyone else is as well, absent criteria. I hope I make myself clear enough, because your actions in this matter are unacceptable, and if they continue I will seek stronger sanctions against you. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok it would be one thing if you were trying to revert it right away (which is still not totally kosher in my opinion but at least you could say you were just putting it back to how it was) but you were the last edit when Mike protected it, your edit was then undone by Majorly so you knew right there that another admin disagreed with you and likely saw you as part of the edit war (in case you thought it was only for the ip). You then came back 4 hours later to not (remove the positive spin) but to remove the entire listing therefore continuing the edit war that started everything in in the first place, except this time the anon was unable to revert back. If you didn't think it belonged coming to post something on the talk page would have been the appropriate thing to do not editing through a protected page when you were in no way an uninvolved admin. Jamesofur 07:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the actions by GerardM here are unnecessary. I think to be honest with you that your actions here are unprofessional and you have made a rash judgement over this. I certainly don't think Mr. Kohs should be banned, totally the wrong way to deal with this situation, he has a right to his own views on the matter as well as his opinions on Jimbo and Angela.Himalayan Explorer 13:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection template request

Please, can an administrator add a "protected" banner to this page? thank you. MarianoC 11:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Meta doesn't have the elaborate infrastructure that other projects do... while en:wp has a whole category of templates with dozens to choose from, my random searches came up empty. If you know of a good template to use, tell me and I'll add it. Otherwise, if there are none, it looks like we have a potential project for someone interested, to sort through other wikis and see about creating a (far simpler) set here. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - {{Temprot}} isn't fancy but it will do. Added. See Category:Protection templates for the rest. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MarianoC 09:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs

Come on, listing Gregory Kohs as some kind of representative of Wikipedia and Wikimedia is just silly. Are there no requirements to be on the list? --Apoc2400 12:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See above, and consider not starting new threads when an existing one might do just fine. As to your comment: The page purports to identify public speakers. Mr. Kohs is a public speaker. Perhaps the page needs clarification/retitling/better (any?... it has none) criteria/what have you? As it stands Mr. Kohs and other critics have as much right to be listed as anyone. I've contacted Guillom to seek his input since he started the page. ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a public speaker for Wikipedia should basically like Wikipedia. If you think Wikipedia is fundamentally bad, then you should not represent it in public. This is common sense. It seems we have survived so far with just AGF and not explicitly stating this. If we want to keep our radical openness to criticism from inside, then we need to define what it takes for a community member to be a public representative. Preferably something more than not banned everywhere at the moment. I avoided the above threads because I don't want to get involved in bickering about who insulted who. --Apoc2400 13:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to work to clarify what the criteria for inclusion and removal are. The page as it is written now makes no statement about official, positive, or whatever. And there are no criteria at all, at present. Get consensus for criteria first, then critique who is on or not on. You've got the order backwards. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Wikipedia is not perfect, and people ought to be made aware of this fact. A dissenting view is a good thing, if it's done constructively with an open mind. There are many people who dislike Wikipedia, or find it problematic and Greg is one of them. We should not stifle criticism, it can only do us good. Majorly talk 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, that's a ridiculous argument. There's a difference between dissent, debate and discussion about how we can improve, and sending someone out to a public event on our behalf when they refer to us a Wikipediots, have been community banned, blocked, trolled, and written some of the more derisive commentary about the entire project that exists in a simple Google search by attendees to such an event. We all criticize aspects of Wikipedia/Wikimedia; there's a big difference between good-natured and constructive criticism, and outright ridicule, mixed with self-promotion. I really question your judgment here if you can't see the difference. --David Shankbone 14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone to review my public presentation to the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, and then indicate to me exactly where I failed to properly represent Wikipedia in public, or where I stated that I think Wikipedia is fundamentally bad. In fact, I have said multiple times that Wikipedia has been the most fundamentally profound Internet development of the 21st century. I have strong concerns about how it has been professionally managed from the Foundation level, but please don't put words in my mouth, to suggest that I don't "like" Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as it stands, is highly entertaining and likewise a powerful tool. -- Thekohser 13:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I said you don't like it or you find it problematic. The latter is certainly true, with regards to how it is managed. Majorly talk 13:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that you think all wikipedia speakers should be up the arse up the project and say how wonderful it is, I disagree in part. I think potential speakers who acknowledge the flaws of wikipedia and are more open to possibilities of change and development is a good thing. While we don't want wikipedia speakers telling everybody !the site is awful and unreliable stay away! we do want speakers in my view who are far more acknowledegable about its basic flaws and accept criticism and are willing in turn to address these issues with the board.Himalayan Explorer 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue is not only but also about Mr Kohs. Given his chutzpah to remove Jimmy Wales and Angela as speakers from this list. This combined with his overly positive advertisement for himself makes this an issue where it is no longer about appearances. This is not an isolated issue and for me, Mr Kohs is not someone we should advertise on Meta as a person who has something to say about Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation. If people are looking for something "else" they can do their research and will have an easy time to find him. GerardM 13:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please work to clarify the intro to the page to state that it's only for uncritical speakers, or officially approved speakers, or whatever, or work to clarify the addition/removal criteria (there are none), rather than casting these aspersions on other users. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that speakers have to be uncritical of Wikipedia, and I made that quite clear. Lar: There has always been implicit criteria, and you are just wiki-lawyering. Majorly: Criticism is good and Greg is welcome to participate critically as long as he isn't disrupting the actual work. He can also criticize from outside all he wants. However, opponents of Wikipedia should not appear as public representatives. If, say, a librarians conference invites someone to speak about Wikipedia, they don't want a speech about how corrupted the foundation is. Now, I do not keep a file on Gregory Kohs. If I remember correctly, he is the person who always shows up in the comment fields of articles about Wikipedia, and is always negative. Didn't he/you also encourage people to sue the foundation? Is he the person that contacted donors to make them not donate. The person who contacted US senators to make them investigate something about Wikipedia? I realize that most people currently reading this page are from Wikipedia Review, and the opinions of Lar, Majorly and Gregory Kohs certainly don't represent a consensus. --Apoc2400 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If there have always been "implicit criteria" then why are so many people surprised not to find any? Even a one or two sentence statement at the top would be better than what was there previously. It's not wikilawyering to point that out. You say you "do not keep a file on Gregory Kohs"... I suggest to you that by your own admission, your characterization of him as uniformly negative about Wikipedia, and wikis in general is uninformed. As for who is or isn't participating here... If wider opinions on this are needed, let us seek them out. Put some notice elsewhere to draw more eyes. But denigrating the current participants isn't useful. Your contributions at Meta are relatively scant but no one is casting aspersions on you for stating your view... while mine are extensive and go beyond just editing. I'll thank you not to be denigrating. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As the initiator of the page, I certainly never intended it to become a place where people edit-war over who should be or not on the list. I have a few ideas to come to a consensus regarding inclusion criteria and the formatting of listings. However, I won't be available for the next 48 hours (family wedding). ; I will try to summarize my proposals before I leave. guillom 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted a proposal below (#Disclaimer and rules for speakers). guillom 16:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As Lar has pointed out above, trying to exclude any individual from the list in the absence of any stated or agreed-upon criteria for inclusion is an exercise in futility.

We can have a chat about who we like or don't like or whatever, but I hope nobody is under the illusion that there's a likelihood of removing an individual from the list under the present conditions.

Continuing the debate without addressing that underlying issue is counterproductive. It doesn't promote an environment of civility; and the practical results will be people digging in their heels or steering clear of the discussion.

I propose that we all agree to take a break from talking about specific people's actions, and instead turn energies toward answering questions like this:

• what do we, as a community, want from a list of public speakers?
• is there a privilege to being on the list (like Wikinews accreditation) that permits members to make some statement about their relation to the project(s)?
• what process will we use to approve or remove members?

Not sure if this metawiki has a template for "discussion closed," but if so, I suggest we use it, and start a new thread. -Peteforsyth 15:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yes, because every aspect of Wikipedia must be governed by precise rules. Any use of good judgment is forbidden. It would be unfair to the bots.</sarcasm> Well, perhaps you are right, and we need detailed rules for this. --Apoc2400 16:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new bot overlords! -Peteforsyth 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

…and, I'm sorry for commenting before reading further down the page…somehow I missed that the policy discussion had already begun. Duh! -Peteforsyth 19:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Attention to this page

If anything, this statistic and this one are instructive. Two to five people opening these pages per day when there is no drama; versus 60 to 90 when there is drama. How does this inform our discussion? Perhaps GerardM and I should package our public speaking as a "Pro vs. Con" presentation, and it would be more attractive to outside recipients. (And I am only half joking.) -- Thekohser 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for list inclusion

I think it would be worthwhile to set up a bit of voting, so that we can see where consensus really stands. So, here are a few statements that we may react to with Approve and Reject votes.

• The Public speakers list should be blanked, then populated only by the actual editors who put forward their availability as public speakers. Other editors should not advocate for inclusion on behalf of the actual speakers.

Approve -- Thekohser 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve with the proviso that blanking serves no purpose if consensus is not reached on other points. -Peteforsyth 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve Guido den Broeder 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - what's the point of blanking? As long as it's validated somehow there is no need to start over. Also, we KNOW Jimbo's a public speaker (for example), and I think he has an agent. It is silly to require him to personally come to this page if someone else can do it for him without any confusion. I support the idea of ensuring the information is timely and accurate, but not via blanking, so neutral.... ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Public speakers list should remain as is, and other editors are welcome to advocate for inclusion on behalf of the actual speakers.

Reject -- Thekohser 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reject Guido den Broeder 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reject - some cleanup is needed. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• There will be no ideological filtering criteria for self-inclusion on the Public speakers list, other than to reject speakers who have a known criminal record or are considered dangerous individuals by a majority of Wikimedia editors presented with the speaker's candidacy.

Approve -- Thekohser 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve Ottava Rima 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve without the proviso, already Guido den Broeder 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve with the proviso as stated and in addition the proviso that they are not blocked for any significant length of time on Meta. If they are not a meta user in good standing... this isn't a general collection list. It's a list of Wikimedians. It behooves every wikimedian to stay in good standing here. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• All speakers should be generally responsive to both inside and outside inquiries to their availability and/or skill set.

Approve -- Thekohser 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve Ottava Rima 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve -Peteforsyth 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve Guido den Broeder 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve - with the proviso that if they have an agent, that agent can speak for them. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Only speakers who have a generally favorable opinion and experience with the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects and communities will be permitted on the Public speakers list.

Reject -- Thekohser 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Approve (There are plenty of opportunities for people to speak, regardless of whether or not they're on this list. But I see no reason for the Wikimedia community to promote speakers who have no positive vision of what WM projects are doing or can expect to accomplish.) -Peteforsyth 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reject (it would exclude everyone, I fear) Guido den Broeder 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reject ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Any speaker who has ever been blocked on any Wikimedia Foundation project may be called to question for inclusion on the Public speakers list by a quorum of three independent editors. The blocked or formerly-blocked speaker will be permitted onto the Public speakers list only after a community vote (majority rules) on Meta.

Approve -- Thekohser 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Something along these lines is needed, but let's get a better handle on what it is we're looking for, before we decide how we're going to get it. -Peteforsyth 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reject (we should be able to call to question everyone, which kinda solves all issues raised here) Guido den Broeder 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reject - per Guido, anyoone should be question-able. (although I agree with Peteforsyth) ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Wikipedia not wanting to be represented by its opponents is some kind of evil censorship? I don't expect, say, the National Rifle Association to put me on their list of public speakers, even if I'm willing to pay the membership fee. Especially not if I had spent years promoting gun control and telling everyone that NRA members are idiots and their leadership is corrupt. I don't think highly of the NRA, but I really wouldn't hold that against them. --Apoc2400 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed purpose and criteria for exclusion

General purpose of list: As a positive and uplifting outreach tool to people who don't know much about Wikimedia, "Public speakers" are people who are available in their communities to discuss and show in a good light the work of good people on Wikimedia projects, and the philosophies behind Wikimedia.
What this list is not: A list of people to stage a debate about the merits of Wikimedia projects; nor a directory of all critics and supporters of Wikimedia projects.

• Speakers should not be under severe sanction rising to the level of a block of a week or more; having been blocked more than three times in a two month period; subject to arbitration restrictions; or banned.
• Speakers who subvert the goals of Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia:Five pillars or Founding principles should not be accepted as speakers on behalf of Wikimedia projects.
• Speakers should be active in their projects, and a casual review of their contributions should evidence that activity and its good quality.

There's a start. --David Shankbone 15:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with most of the above. However, the "block" is a little ambiguous as there could be a block on one project and good standing in another. I feel that we should focus more on what this list is instead of what it is not, and focus more on positives that people can contribute instead of negatives that can exclude. This is about public relations, and we should be as welcoming to people as possible. If Mr. Kohs (or any others) wishes to be welcoming to others and introduce them to Wikipedia in a welcoming manner, then sure. If he does not, then the list wouldn't be right for him. However, we must be welcoming in others being welcoming, otherwise, it would be a little hypocritical and defeat the purpose. This is an inclusion based outreach program, not an exclusive operation. Ottava Rima 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The block aspect certainly could use amending, but the exclusions above are common sense. Speaking on our behalf is not the front line of "Wikimedia inclusiveness". --David Shankbone 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like precise rules like number and time of blocks, because it will be abused in all kinds of creative ways, probably to make a point. Perhaps the first paragraph would be enough. Even Kohs could be on the list if he is able to represent Wikipedia well. --Apoc2400 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A presumption that a person is a positive contributor and a supporter of Wikimedia project goals and principles should be given; however, there should be some loose "clearly you don't qualify" criteria, particularly if there is a predominant history of public speaking that shows Wikimedia's projects and principles in a bad light. --David Shankbone 16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

David, re your start, are we to understand that people get blocked for their views on Wikimedia projects? Otherwise, blocks are irrelevant here. Well, maybe it has indeed come to that. Guido den Broeder 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer and rules for speakers

I don't wish to discuss inclusion criteria for the time being. There is obviously no consensus on this topic and reaching it will probably take some time. However, I would like to propose that we add the following Disclaimer and rules for the listing. Hopefully, we can reach consensus quickly on this point and it will then help us move on to possible inclusion criteria. guillom 16:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer

The following individuals have expressed interest in presenting Wikimedia projects. They have not been endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Some speak officially for the Wikimedia Foundation, others do not. However, they may provide you with an interesting presentation, and insight into our projects. For official correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation, please refer to the Wikimedia Foundation's contact page. Wikimedia chapters may also recommend a speaker in your area.

Rules for speakers

• Only current official positions within a Wikimedia organization are allowed in the "Position" field (Board member of a chapter, staff member, etc.). Former positions may be listed in the "Comments" section. Users who currently hold no official position within a Wikimedia organization may list themselves as "Wikimedia volunteer", "Wikipedia volunteer" (or "WikiFoo volunteer" where WikiFoo is an official Wikimedia project).
• In order to keep the list short and usable, the "Comments" section is limited to 150 characters. Comments must be factual and presented from a neutral point of view.
• Since all speakers' goal is to talk about Wikimedia projects, only internal links to Wikimedia projects are allowed in the listing. External links are not allowed, in order to avoid self-promotion.

Can we agree on this? guillom 16:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• So far, so good. --David Shankbone 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Internal links to Wikimedia projects are allowed in the listing. External links are not allowed, in order to avoid self-promotion," I hope you intend to apply that rule to all of the speakers, since I count 4 external links right now. 207.34.229.126 17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We don't forbid external links elsewhere, so we shouldn't do so here either. The public will want to know where the speaker is coming from. Guido den Broeder 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I support most of this as a temporary measure. I'm not sure about the external links question, could go either way there. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would say 'external links are only allowed if they are directly to previous presentations.' Otherwise, great. -- sj · translate · + 06:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the disclaimer. Thanks for doing this. A few suggested changes/refinements:

• The sentence about "endorsement" should cover the community as well as the WMF. Something like: "Their presence here does not imply an explicit endorsement by the WMF or by any community within the WM universe, though some basic criteria are required. (Adjust this language depending on what consensus is reached here)
• "Some may speak officially for independent entities within the Wikimedia universe, such as Wikimedia chapters or WikiProjects."
• I'm not thrilled about the term "volunteer," I'd like to see something (or a list of somethings) that are a little more universal. Maybe a menu of terms people can use: volunteer, editor, contributor, writer, photographer, gnome, dragon, knight…you get the idea. My list is not meant to be definitive, but as a starting point for discussion.
• I'm not sure we should draw a line on internal/external links, though some guideline of what sort of links are desired/acceptable is probably a good idea. If I put up a profile of myself on my own web site outlining my work with various Wikimedia projects, Creative Commons, Open Directory Project, and local non-profits in the non-tech world, I don't see any reason I shouldn't be able to add a link to that. What purpose does it serve to require me to post that profile in the Wikimedia project/user space?

-Peteforsyth 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Add separate list for popular critics

There should be a good resource for people to find popular critics of Wiki[mp]edia. Something like w:WP:Criticisms of Wikipedia, for speakers. There are times when a panel organizer or talk seeker explicitly wants that, and we should be able to provide a balanced, neutral list of such speakers -- in good humor. They would love a list of thoughtful and convincing critics who don't have personal axes to grind, and can really lay out important cases for changing WP without coming across as self-interested or conspiracy theorists. Many of these critics don't spend much time giving talks about it at all, and need to be asked.

My main concern with the loudest critics is that many (including RMS :) a) fixate on their personal dramatic history and b) never manage to avoid the lust of flame wars long enough to become much of an editor. So they don't have a cross-section of examples, only learn about a certain narrow set of policies and processes, and their view is of a community that spends its time debating policy and reverting one another.

So I would add a separate page or section for critics (that is, people whose speaking is characterized by attacks on problems with wikipedia; every speaker on the current list has some criticisms they are happy to share). -- sj · translate · + 06:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF do you think we are doing here

section devoted to personal dispute blanked, in order to keep discussion focused on the project at hand. Section prior to blanking -Peteforsyth 19:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This blanking out of text and calling it a personal dispute, makes it a personal dispute in the eyes of the person blanking it. In my opinion it removes the essence of this discussion. Thanks, GerardM 06:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing I said that is in the blanked section that I think is worth fishing out is the following:

If this list is an official WMF list, let the WMF officially say so, and state what the criteria for inclusion are, or who is authorised to make the determination, or whatever. If it's not, then a community process to determine inclusion/removal/allowable content is completely appropriate ...

[and we'll all be bound by it] Because if this IS a page governed by official WMF policy, it would be nice to know that now :) ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that back, Lar. It's a good point. I'm going to drop Jay at the WMF a note alerting him to this discussion. -Peteforsyth 06:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some basic questions

As with most wiki pages, I believe it would be useful to consider the purpose from this perspective

• WHO is its intended audience
• WHAT are they looking for?

As a first stab at the question, I would imagine the "WHO" might be a very broad audience, ranging from planners of conferences for the general public and for trade organizations, to journalists working on a story, to attorneys looking for expert witnesses.

Many of these people would be looking for somebody who can speak to the strengths and vision of Wikimedia projects, but it's true that some may be seeking known critics, or maybe just someone who can be entertaining.

So, my position on whether the list should exclude people who don't have a positive view on Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia is founded on a spirit of openness and service, and unlike the NRA (an example listed above), I think we are as committed to an open discourse as we are to the success of our project.

I wonder if focusing on the structure of the list, rather than who is or isn't included, might be more useful. For instance, we might require that those who have significant critical views about WMF projects outline them in the "comments" section, so that the audience knows what it is seeing.

We might include a sort of "community override" -- e.g., that if 3 or more people feel that a comment section is lacking certain important information, that they may add it without the consent of the person named.

We could also think about what columns are listed in the table. -Peteforsyth 06:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some good ideas for firming up the foundations of this discussion,Peteforsyth. I agree getting these basic questions answered (by the WMF? By us as a group?) will help a lot. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I got an answer from Jay: "It's a community-operated list." He goes into a touch more detail if you think it's relevant,but IMHO that's the answer we've been waiting on. -Peteforsyth 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

May I offer a datapoint here? I've been on this list for a few years, & have never been received a request to talk about Wikipedia because of it. All of my presentations about Wikipedia have been due to my own initiative, & spoken as my opinion -- which can vary from enthusiastic & positive to disillusioned & negative, but usually far more complex than either extreme. Quibbling over who is on this list is a tempest in a teapot: if Angela & Jimmy Wales are removed from the list, I doubt that will have an effect on the number of requests they receive, & if it is done for bad or disruptive reasons then add their names back to the list. -- Llywrch 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Those kinds of arguments only have merit in the present. It only takes one time for someone to come to a list, contact a speaker to be part of some panel somewhere, or talk to school kids (as I have done), go off about how terrible Wikimedia is, that it's nothing more than a MMPORG, or a revenge platform, have it become a press issue that one of "Wikimedia's speakers" trashed the whole thing...and then cue the hand-wringing about why this list was not properly maintained. I guess we can quote, "It was never an issue before". Lastly, I find it amazing that whenever we have serial disrupters of the project, it brings out a chorus of defenders who act as though there is not a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong history of disruption, and instead focus on whatever the current example is as 'not so bad' whilst ignoring the pattern. Often, the ones who call Wikimedia a MMPORG are the ones who most make it that way. --David Shankbone 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When I organize a discussion, I often ask two speakers, one on either side of the argument. A single speaker who only wants to promote something is not very captivating. Therefore, the list should accomodate speakers with a wide range of views. Some kind of categorization on this page, and/or informative text, would then help the reader select speakers for an event. If there are just names and affiliations, the list won't be used often. Guido den Broeder 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is an available copy of the presentation delivered to the Colorado high school students? For example, there is a copy of my presentation to representatives of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. I wonder which presentation was more likely to "go off" about how terrible Wikimedia is, or that it is nothing more than a MMORPG, or is a revenge platform? We only have half the evidence to make a judgment. I believe Llywrch makes a good point, which I attempted to make also, in that this Public speakers page receives very little traffic, except when I become active on it. Perhaps there would be some credit to Wikimedia visibility if we were to deliberately organize a public debate of sorts, between those self-promoting characters with a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong history of disruption versus those who selflessly labor without drawing attention to themselves. Such visibility was certainly the intention of the Commonwealth Club when they invited Jimmy Wales and Andrew Keen to share a stage. I guess the issue here boils down to selecting between one of two basic options:

• Establish a very boring list of speakers willing to provide predictable and supportive viewpoints about Wikimedia projects, garnering one or two page views per day.
• Establish a provocative, risky list of speakers expressing a variety of divergent viewpoints about Wikimedia projects, garnering measurably higher page views per day.

My vote aligns with the latter option, but if others wish to align with the former option, that's understandable, too. -- Thekohser 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Greg, in the presentations I have done about the quality and promise of Wikipedia, I have never once gotten feedback that I was boring or predictable. Can you substantiate that claim? Also, it's a little tough to believe that the increased page views reflects an increased interest in people actually looking for speakers. I'd have a hard time believing those increased page views reflect much more than just those of us participating in this discussion, and others who are interested in the outcome of this discussion. -Peteforsyth 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of us cares about page views; it's not like its going to increase our ad revenue. It's interesting that somehow the Commonwealth Club was able to find Andrew Keen without our creating a list advertising people who dislike us. We have an entire article about it, and we even have w:Wikipedia:Criticisms devoted to quotes by critics. Both are--surprise, surprise--the first hit on Google. Claiming "openness" as a reason to include critics rings hollow; otherwise, why not have the Wikipedia Review's blog on Planet Wikimedia? It's the same idea. Is there a reason why we prohibit it for Planet, but are discussing it as a boon for all of us when it comes to public speaking? --David Shankbone 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pete, you're not on the list, are you? If not, I'm not sure how your presentations have anything to do with this discussion, but I am indeed happy that none of your presentations have been labeled boring or predictable. Do you have a copy of any of your presentations that you might share with us? I guess there is no copy of what was presented to the Colorado school children. That being said, the argument that page views have nothing to do with speaker engagements is a strong one. What would it hurt, then, to simply dismantle this page? We have data that it is not widely viewed, that nobody has ever been contacted to speak thanks to this list, and that the maintenance of the list causes a significant amount of stress for certain Wikimedia volunteers. We'd have much to gain from its termination, and (apparently) very little to lose. I don't have any experience with having had a blog prohibited from kicked out of Planet Wikimedia, so I cannot comment on that. -- Thekohser 19:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz denied and Wikipedia Review blog. Both were rejected, and both were proposed by you. --David Shankbone 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I didn't know this page existed until it became the center of controversy, or I would have been listed on it. Apparently I'm not missing out much, if your page view stats tell the full story! There's only one of my presentations with a good online record, where I was one of two people interviewed for an hour-long radio program. (Look for the "play" button near the top -- it's small, but not hard to find if you know what you're looking for.)

But, my point was not really about me; I've heard plenty of other people (Steven Walling comes to mind) give excellent presentations that captivated the audience and elicited some pretty elevated questions and commentary. By contrast, from my perspective it seems that much of the criticism of Wikipedia is rather redundant and boring – not to say there aren't exceptions. But really, it's a matter of perspective. There is clearly a demand out there for people who can speak on behalf of the project, and it sounds like there's also some demand for critical speakers (though I haven't personally encountered that).

Presenting a resource would seem to have some value even if very few people read it, if those people are well served by it. Currently, this page doesn't seem to score too high on related Google searches, but it's not hard to imagine that changing. And really, I don't see a huge amount of stress associated with this page as a general rule; sure, a couple people got a little worked up, but if we do our job and find a position we can all live with, I can't imagine why that should be a lasting concern. -Peteforsyth 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. Then I'll just tuck away this straw man here, and we can get back to discussing how to improve and make more useful this list of public speakers! -- Thekohser 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Greg, just looked over your slideshow -- looks like a well-thought-out presentation. If you criticized Wikipedia in the delivery, it's not reflected in the document. And I' not sure a bit of criticism mixed in there would be a bad thing.

Also, for whatever it's worth…I presented at Innotech Portland last spring, though I never posted the slides. I don't think there's a recording of that. -Peteforsyth 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging remarks about my presentation, Pete. I try to professionally cater to the resource needs of my clients. Unfortunately, I'm not able to get Firefox to play your OPR piece. A shame, as I was looking forward to it based on the text write-up on the page. -- Thekohser 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Progress or consensus?

Have we actually made any progress or gained consensus about how this page should develop, moving forward? -- Thekohser 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I !vote "weak delete". It serves no useful purpose, as nobody (of any perspective) is going to get a gig from it, and it's a drama-magnet (sigh - to be pedantic, I really mean that even though it is in theory conceivable in an abstract sense that someone someday might speak somewhere on account of the page, the actual chance of that happening is so remote, that the present value of flaming the page generates, far outweighs that miniscule potential). -- Seth Finkelstein 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus and there is unlikely to be some. GerardM 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we're stuck. Suggest someone less involved (that is, not Kohser, Gerard, myself, etc) try reading over what we have said, and just boldly edit in something that takes all concerns on board and see if it sticks. The notion of a review process (tempered by common sense) seems to make sense to many. The notion of guidelines about what should and shouldn't be included, seems to make sense to many. Heck, if we just went forward with Guillom's disclaimer that would be goodness, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're stuck all that badly, just needing something along the lines of what Lar says above.

I think there's a possible solution along the lines of (1) changing the structure of the chart, for instance to include a column for "community sanctions" (or just to block logs on relevant sites), and (2) outlining a general rule for community commentary (e.g., that if 3 or more people agree that a certain fact should be disclosed, that it should be included in the list).

So, if John Doe wants to be included, but has been blocked on en.wikinews a couple times and had a couple public shouting matches with other prominent members of that community, (1) the blocks would be included in the relevant column, and (2) assuming 3 people think it's significant enough to include, the listing would have a simple 1- or 2-sentence, factual description of the dispute.

I offer that up as a general framework, and invite adjustments to the specifics. -Peteforsyth 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like the worst possible idea to me. Guido den Broeder 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Guido, can you explain why it's a bad idea? You said this above:

"When I organize a discussion, I often ask two speakers, one on either side of the argument. A single speaker who only wants to promote something is not very captivating. Therefore, the list should accomodate speakers with a wide range of views. Some kind of categorization on this page, and/or informative text, would then help the reader select speakers for an event. If there are just names and affiliations, the list won't be used often."

My suggestion is intended to be in line with that: providing the reader with useful information that will help them make a selection from the list. What are the aspects of my suggestion that make it the wrong approach? And, what's a better way to accomplish your stated preference (which is something I wholeheartedly agree with)? -Peteforsyth 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not in any way informative, and their mention serves only to diminish the person. Useful information would be a few lines about the speaker's general take on Wikimedia projects, and their prefered topics. The speakers can best provide that info themselves. Guido den Broeder 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Guido, I think you're right, that was a hasty and poor suggestion on my part. Many, or even most, blocks are very routine, and really don't do much to shed light on an editor's background. But some reflect genuine tensions in the community, and it's helpful to someone seeking a speaker to know what they're getting into.

However, sanctions that come from official bodies after extensive processes (e.g. ArbCom bans or other sanctions) are more significant than blocks, and are informative about a person's history with the community they're offering to speak about. What do you think of requiring people to disclose such actions here, if requested by others in the community? There could be a lot of leeway in "disclose" -- it could be anything from a link to the decision, to a one-sentence description by the subject. -Peteforsyth 19:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And to address the other part of your point: maybe "requiring" things is not the right approach. Maybe we should be considering somethign more like a guideline: "When adding yourself to the list, it's requested that you disclose any significant disputes you have been involved in, especially any that resulted in official sanctions."

Or yet another option: in the absence of either of those, we could flesh out the introductory text (probably a good idea regardless) and give a disclaimer, including something to the effect that some of the people on the list may have a history of contention on various WM projects. -Peteforsyth 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some unhelpful comments by various users removed, Guido den Broeder 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I think you trimmed too much but OK... :) So with those gone, can we get back on track and move this to resolution? ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pete, a disclaimer sounds like a good idea to me, rather than to rekindle the drama that is already in the past. Guido den Broeder 09:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

given the fact that the discussion and the opinion no longer represents how people see this issue, a consensus would be achieved that is no longer representative of the positions taken. When these positions are considered to be "unhelpfull", it can be easily considered to be pov pushing. I see it as such. Thanks, GerardM 06:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Guido den Broeder 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, I do declare that we are "stuck" and that the content page is organized as it ever shall be, or in close approximation to how it currently stands. Pretty much agreed? -- Thekohser 02:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we've returned to about 4 or 5 page views per day, so all that former drama surrounding my various improvements to the layout and composition of the page seems to have been wasted energy. -- Thekohser 16:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page or IRC?

In determining the consensus for how this Meta page should be handled, we seem to have a group of seasoned Meta editors who want the Talk page to be the focus of that discussion, while we have a new group of editors who seem to think that an IRC chat is going to be the new focus of discussion. I am confused. Are we supposed to use the Talk page, or IRC to gain consensus? -- Thekohser 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to conclude, not just from this page, that meta, too, has now been overrun by wikitoddlers. I see hardly any normal communication anymore, but more and more people that are only out to hurt their fellow human beings. IRC is a great place to coordinate such an endeavour. Guido den Broeder 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page obviously. I think it is ridiculous that such a decision has apparently been made on IRC without even bothering to notify anyone. In any case, my opinion on the matter is that adding "banned" is just a method of being spiteful, and doesn't improve the page in any way. Majorly talk 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that we have Talk page consensus that the Talk page is superior to IRC for handling consensus. Now, it appears that Mike.lifeguard will not correct his mistake of freezing the content page in a state that reflects the one-sided manipulation of an IRC team that has (to my knowledge) failed to release the transcript of their "consensus". Therefore, Mike has asked me to find consensus here on the Talk page that this notion of adding "banned on English Wikipedia" to my listing on the content page, without my knowledge, without my notification, and without my consent, is utter bollocks. I think it is disgraceful, and I move that the page be restored to how it was before this IRC team began to manipulate it. May I have consensus on that, please? -- Thekohser 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with self. -- Thekohser 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your note to me asking me to comment, I'd rather see consensus arrived at on the talk page if possible, that's the wiki way. I don't see the need for a specific transcript to be released but some summation of the points raised might be helpful. But to the specific question, I think it's meaningful to list that you've been banned. As long as that standard is applied uniformly... and that anyone else who is banned on any WMF wiki have that listed as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Here is another customer. Wutsje 16:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ack'd Lar, the same standard should definitely be applied for all in the list who are blocked. It's helpful to know who is still an active part of the community and who isn't for those who look for a public speaker. Also inactive people should be marked. Maybe someone wants both an active and a banned or inactive user to talk to. --თოგო ^(D) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would make sense to discuss that with the subject of the editorial change, or is it more in the WikiWay to conspire about it behind his back, change the listing, then have a sympathetic admin lock the page? You should note that when I took it upon myself to modify other speakers' listings on the page, I only did so after introducing two weeks of discussion about it, and then another two weeks to allow subjects to respond to a personal e-mail that I sent to each potentially affected party, then made it very clear that if anyone disagreed with any of my by-the-process modifications, they could restore them. Compare the bullshit that just happened to me in the past two days here. If it is decided appropriate to list the specific projects where a speaker is blocked or banned, then I think it would also be appropriate to list the active projects (active could be 50+ edits in the past 12 months) where they are not blocked or banned. I would be agreeable to that, since I am a fair person. -- Thekohser 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you assert that I am "sympathetic"?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's easy, Mike. In our past, have you ever dismissed as irrelevant my carefully researched opinion about promotional use of User pages? Yes, you have. Therefore, you are not an uninvolved admin regarding one of the key parties in this dispute. Yet, you elected to freeze the page in a state that was palpably adverse to how I wished myself to be characterized. After complaint was made to you, you dismissed the complaint, saying that Talk page consensus should rule the day -- even though you just froze a page that was the result of IRC consensus over Talk page consensus. Any ordinary person would believe beyond a reasonable doubt that you are "sympathetic" to the side opposite the one I am taking here. My assertion was a rudimentary and simple one to make. -- Thekohser 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I once kept discussion on-topic, so now I am sympathetic to anything you don't happen to like? I think the weakness of the argument makes itself obvious. Please let me know when a consensus has formed on the substantive matters here, and I'll be sure it is carried out. Until then  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "kept discussion on-topic" you mean that when the discussion was about misuse of User space to self-promote offsite pages, and you were given an example of a Wikimedian similarly misusing her User space to self-promote, that you removed that example from the discussion, then sure, the argument is really, really weak. Mike, have you ever done anything wrong on a Wikimedia project? -- Thekohser 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Thekohser. This is a list of real people. Any link to a person's account, if not provided by the person themselves, is therefore a privacy violation. To allow this will, as always, only result in an endless parade of defamation attempts as Wutsje so convincingly demonstrates. Guido den Broeder 16:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What you write is that a person is the only one who can say something about himself. Even when it is obvious that the representation is in fact a misrepresetation. Mr Kosh is a self appointed admin, he is blocked not only but also on the en.wikipedia. Mr Kosh has the option to refrain from standing as a public speaker. That is something that will not be denied and with it, this discussion becomes irrelevant and at that stage Mr Kohs does not need to be discussed as a person who wants to go out in the public. Thanks, GerardM 17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We ought to think about discounting the argument of someone who cannot even correctly spell the name of his adversary. -- 69.141.192.61 03:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning a few facts can hardly qualify as a step in "an endless parade of defamation attempts", I'd say. When someone declares himself a public speaker on Meta on "expertise, policy, project leadership, social experiment", anyone thinking about inviting him may may want to know something about his views on those subjects. The fact that GdB has been blocked infinitely on nl:wiki by an arbcom decision certainly sheds some light there. The same goes for mentioning his foundership of Wikisage, where he wrote about Wikipedia: "The illiterate had the opportunity to decide that their personal view was the neutral point of view, and the experts' input was rendered impossible by all imaginable means. Wikipedia is a prison where the convicted rules and their victims get locked up, a school where toddlers are the boss of the teachers" ([1]). Against this background not mentioning a long time block appears somewhat misleading to me. Wutsje 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And the parade commences ... Guido den Broeder 18:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The question here is: why would someone with a background like this want to list himself as a public speaker for Wikimedia? Wutsje 09:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is rather why would you, who has never shown an interest in this page before, and has no insights regarding Wikimedia projects to offer yourself that we're aware of, suddenly show up, and start demanding that private information about listed speakers is revealed. Except of course that Darkoneko has already told me how this happened and what your purpose is. Guido den Broeder 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My purpose is to get some clarification here about your motives. My insights in Wikimedia are not a subject here: I have not listed myself as a public speaker. The fact that you're blocked on nl:wiki certainly is not private information (see here) (and as for the Wikisage quote: it's on the internet, you put it there, it's your site). I have no problem with speakers who obviously are kind of dissidents within the Wikimedia community, but I do wonder why you so adamantly persist in wanting your block on nl:wiki not mentioned. Wutsje 22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wutsje, I have no other motives than, I think, anyone else on the page. Unsurprisingly, you still fail to understand any of the points made (you're only an admin, after all). First, it's up to you to explain why you insist on mentioning something that you clearly think will hurt a real person (I don't), rather than the other way around. Second, the speakers are not the same as some accounts. None of the speakers is blocked or banned anywhere, only accounts are. To reveal or suggest that some account belongs to some real person is not allowed except in specific cases, of which this is not one. Guido den Broeder 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GdB has clearly missed this sentence: "When someone declares himself a public speaker on Meta on "expertise, policy, project leadership, social experiment", anyone thinking about inviting him may may want to know something about his views on those subjects. The fact that GdB has been blocked infinitely on nl:wiki by an arbcom decision certainly sheds some light there." As for his suggestion that there might be several different users active under the name Guido den Broeder: I simply don't buy that. Wutsje 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You now have made 5 posts here, where you replied to none of the questions that have been asked (what is so vitally important about blocks that privacy rules can be broken?), but instead found it necessary to point to the same individual block in each of them and insinuate ulterior motives, while you have never heard me speak. I think we've seen enough, please spare us any further reiterations. Guido den Broeder 17:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again: there are no privacy issues here, user blocks are not private information, so they can be mentioned in the list. And again: afaic they should, as that may be informative to any person who might want to invite one of these self-appointed speakers about what they may expect. Wutsje 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can answer that question, Guido. The page purports to feature people who "are available to give presentations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects." I am available to do that; and, in fact, I have done it a couple of times before -- once on national television, another time at a professional education conference. Second, the page also explains: "Disclaimer: The people presented here do not necessarily speak on behalf or at the request of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, in the spirit of open and transparent communication, various voices are represented in this self-generated and community-maintained list. Not all of the voices share the same perspectives or experiences about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects." I think that I suitably fit that bill, perhaps unlike anyone else on the page (except for the guy who feels Wikimedia projects were an utter waste of his life, who is now removed from the page, thanks to my efforts to clean up and keep current the page). Finally, although it doesn't say so on the page, I would forward the proposition that I know more about Wikipedia, about the Wikimedia projects, and about the Wikimedia Foundation than at least 75% of the others listed on the page, and certainly more than 99.8% of all Americans. I've always wished someone would put together an impartial quiz about Wikipedia and WMF subjects, such that we might have Wikipedia Jeopardy! or something like it. I do have a wealth of knowledge about these topics, and I'm just offering to share them. Numerous independently-acting editors here have also endorsed my listing on this page, even if it upsets a few people who can't tolerate the thought of open and transparent communication that does not necessarily speak on behalf or at the request of the WMF. We need to start building consensus now. -- Thekohser 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies... I thought that Wutsje's dialog was directed at me. My answer still informs, though. -- Thekohser 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Other modifications...

So, if the consensus from the IRC team pans out, and it is okay to modify other speakers' listings with information that they would prefer not be posted to their listing, what things do you think we might be able to get away with doing to certain other people's listings? -- Thekohser 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There never was an IRC consensus. Darkoneko has pretty much admitted that he went canvassing. But consensus building is not a vote. With no answer to the question why a mention of bans and blocks would be so critical here that this page should be an exception to the rule against outing, the consensus remains where it was before, i.e. with this general rule rather than with some votestack. Guido den Broeder 15:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree there was never any real agreement to add the ban mention (actually, quite the opposite). I suggest it be removed promptly and the page be unprotected. Majorly talk 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me there's still no consensus about that. Wutsje 23:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add it either. So we return to the status quo. Besides, the person who it is doesn't want it there, why are we trying to rub it in their face that they are banned? Majorly talk 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not about rubbing in. I seriously think that anyone who may want to invite one of the speakers on the list should have a change to know who they're dealing with, especially when not mentioning relevant facts could be considered to be misleading. Why should we allow readers to be misinformed? Wutsje 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is misinforming? If I was going to employ someone as a speaker, I would do a little more research than just looking at the blurb on their profile. Greg is only banned from an extreme minority of Wikimedia projects, so he can speak about other projects he is not banned from, and should be able to without the slur on his name. Majorly talk 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Mr. Thekohser's contributions, but I am familiar with those of Mr. Den Broeder. Did you check the quote on his site (Wikisage) I mentioned above? And wouldn't you say that a infinite ban by the nl:wiki arbcom for legal threats might be worth mentioning? Wutsje 21:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually. In answer to your second question, no, not at all. Majorly talk 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't even care to read the whole discussion on this page, then why bother participating in it? Mr. Den Broeder is a well known troll on nl:wiki. His ideas about Wikipedia are quite peculiar, to say the least. Maybe you don't mind, but I do - and I should think people like him should not be listed as public speakers without some sort of explanation who he is and what he may have to say. Wutsje 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

People can develop an informed opinion from my publications and from the various articles that have been written about me. These are easy enough to find. Some may have heard me speak before. I have regularly spoken in favour of freely spreading knowledge for nearly three decades. Guido den Broeder 20:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And so we establish that mr. Wutsje is even willing to violate a third user's privacy without blinking just so he can spread lies about a speaker. Anyone with a brain still thinks it's a good idea to let other users edit an entry? Guido den Broeder 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Den Broeder insights in the concepts of both privacy and truth do not appear very thorough to me. Wutsje 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr den Broeder's trash talking exposes his lack of insight that by advertising as a public speaker the right to privacy needs to be balanced with the right to people organising events to get the right person. When people want their privacy, they should not seek the limelight. Thanks, GerardM 10:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My dear Gerard, we are still waiting for you to explain how the mention of block and ban incidents so significantly helps people 'get the right person' that we can ignore all privacy rules. Guido den Broeder 11:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_speakers&action=historysubmit&diff=1684252&oldid=1683904 - I don't get it? If ppl are realy that controversial whats wrong with pointing out verifying information is wise? It's even called trolling.. omg. It's maybe just even more underscribing the deleted advice? I recommand a restore of that edit as a compromise for all of the above... (Dutch wp user 2 lazy for login ;-P) 62.194.31.168 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Should speakers be self-described, community-described, or cabal-described?

Personally, I would !vote for self-described, except where the information is overtly fraudulent or misleading, in which case, consensus on the Talk page (not on IRC) may overrule what a public speaker wishes to say about himself or herself. -- Thekohser 21:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tend to prefer that Position should be the person's position, not what status they are in the wikigame. Majorly talk 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed.

Self-described is the only logical way, but with the guidance that the info should be verifiable (position) and to the point (both position and comments). If in some instance it isn't, IMHO the speaker can be asked to amend their text, and if they fail to comply their entry can be blanked, but never should someone else change the content of their entry. Guido den Broeder 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So, we appear to have consensus of 3-0. I can't wait for the content page to be unlocked! -- Thekohser 14:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You got that wrong.. GerardM 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks right to me. Majorly talk 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that purely self described is appropriate. Were I inclined to, when describing myself I could easily use terms such as "brilliant", "intensely captivating speaker", "svelte", "dashingly handsome" and the like. It may come as a shock to some, but not all of those self described accolades are accurate. Self description is a starting point, yes, but it needs to be tempered with some measure of evaluation by others as to whether it's appropriate or not. To the proximate point here, I do think that mentioning of block records is appropriate. But not just singling out one person, please. Finally I don't think 3-0 is a "consensus"... it's just an interesting starting point. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lar, can you please explain why you think the mentioning of blocks is important? You are still singling people out by insisting on this specific bit of info (instead of e.g. "was denied adminship on ..." that I think is slightly more informative), albeit two persons instead of one. If a block is mentioned, should then not also the reason for that block be mentioned, so the reader can judge its meaning in this context for themselves? For instance: "They are currently blocked on one of the hundred projects for correcting a typo in their name / for making humorous edit summaries". And who should edit that? What with speakers who are blocked under unknown usernames, how do we detect that? Guido den Broeder 09:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to know that a significant community has a view about a contributor so strong that it lead to a permanent ban. I'm surprised at your resistance. If it's necessary to elaborate, rather than recapping (in a potentially biased way) why, just give a link to the relevant discussion(s). ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your surprise is stunning, because you should know better. Ban discussions are rarely neutral or even readable, and never have I seen a case where the decision was made by 'a significant community'. Also, the reason to ban usually has nothing to do with someone's views regarding Wikimedia projects in general or even the single one where the speaker is banned. But it is good to see that you already went from all blocks to only permanent bans. Guido den Broeder 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is you who should know better. I suspect your view is colored by the fact that you're currently indefinitely blocked (or banned, depending on terminology used) on more than one wiki. I think transient blocks probably don't need mentioning but if someone is blocked for a considerable period (say, anything from a month up) at the time of their adding themselves to the list, it ought to be memtioned. Because that IS a significant fact. It shows that the person cannot function within the norms of the community. Whether that is because of their own issues, or because of community issues is a matter of opinion, but it's a material fact nonetheless. Again, this is a reasonable thing to require mentioning on the listing. Your resistance to that is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What about a public speaker who has so egregiously transgressed social norms, that his actions have been brought to publication in the mainstream press, bringing disrepute to the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects? If we're going to mention community bans, wouldn't it be equally, if not more, important to mention extra-community infamy? I think you know which speaker I am talking about, so I won't elaborate, unless it's requested that I show where this has happened before... multiple times. -- Thekohser 13:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that if we are mentioning blocks, an internal matter, then that sort of information probably ought to be mentioned as well. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So where does it end? Can't you see that this completely destroys the idea of having this page? Nobody would want to be on it. Surely if such facts would be in any way significant, there would be a neutral encyclopedic article about the person mentioning them, hmmmmm? Meanwhile, I see that you, too, are now using this talk page as a coatrack to defame a speaker where you are personally involved in the speaker's current status on a project. That is exactly the kind of thing that we want to avoid here. This neatly demonstrates, btw, that there might be something wrong with those (i.e. your) norms, rather than with the blocked speaker. Guido den Broeder 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a place for speakers to advertise their services. There is no need for people to fiddle with others' entries (unless the information given is obviously false). I can't see what is so difficult about this. Majorly talk 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a place where you can find people who are willing to speak about Wikimedia related subjects. When information is hopelessly biased / flawed it is understandable and appropriate when people object. People do not need to advertise their willingness to be a speaker. Thanks, GerardM 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what information is biased/flawed. "People do not need to advertise their willingness to be a speaker" Shall we delete the entire page then? Majorly talk 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, that may be what it eventually comes down to. Certain people are very jealous of other (banned) people's talent and ability and track-record of public exposure (such as on national TV and academic conferences alike), and so they have to somehow find additional avenues where they may launch into attacks that they believe will help justify "why this obviously gregarious and successful person needed to be blocked from Wikipedia". Their own behavior is childish and amateurish, not to mention counter-intuitive, yet they think this sort of bashing is going to somehow elevate their foolishness to the level of "careful criticism". What's funny is that ever since this page has been the site of crazy argumentative battle, there is not one speck of evidence that anyone outside of Meta has exercised any effort to contact any of these speakers, as a result of the listing here. I'd vote for full deletion of the entire page, as long as trolls like Gerard are running amok. -- Thekohser 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If it comes to that, a viable alternative may be to create a template that speakers can put on their meta userpage. Regards, Guido den Broeder 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good idea. Provide a template that gives some standard info fields, and creates a category, have this page talk about the contents of teh category and point to the template and let people find folk on their own... ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We could also provide a link to Luxo's tool, so that anyone interested can view for himself if someone's blocked or not. Wutsje 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)