WMF work-related pagesEdit

Hi. Content on such pages do not require community consensus to be there, as with any action/project the WMF goes forward with. The place for criticism are the talk pages, RfCs, and surveys, not by adding misleading essay tags to the main articles. Vermont (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Brand ProjectEdit

Hi, at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/September 2020 - Update you mentioned "criteria for good movement branding" established by the brand project. Can you please add a link there to those criteria? TIA --h-stt !? 13:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@H-stt: Done, and for the record: Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#The_qualities_of_good_movement_branding_(Movement_Branding_Criteria) TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 19:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thx --h-stt !? 14:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've undone my commentEdit

If you want, you can undo your reply, which I have seen. I really want to avoid entering the dynamics that we have entered before. I don't think they benefit anyone. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF:I'm not sure what to say to this. I think that the Foundation's response to critics - trying to use "civility" as a way to suppress criticism - has been a huge problem. So I think pointing out an example of that happening on the page meant to discuss how the Foundation communicates is valid and useful, and I'd rather we spoke about it rather that tried to remove the conversation entirely. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 16:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
We have discussed this already. I am not trying to use "civility" as a way to suppress criticism. Many have expressed criticism in conversations where I have been involved, including tense ones, and including you. To whom have I mentioned Meta:Civility? only to one user, and many times. That section is about "Isn't this just The Signpost?". My comment was not about that topic and I see no harm in removing it. Wouldn't it be nice to have civil discussions, as we manage to have when we meet in person / in online meetings. Qgil-WMF (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: So, let's break down the thread in question. It isn't just a discussion about the Signpost - it's about what the point of the page is, because the Communications department was unable to actually communicate what it was trying to accomplish. Once ELappen explains what the page is about (and referred me up that section), discussion can begin. ChristianKl asks "Does the WMF just want to know how to better speak to the community but also how to better listen?" And then Sänger replies with his usual speech about how the Foundation exists to serve the community, and how the way for it to serve the community is for it to listen more. That might be right or might be wrong, but it's not uncivil just becuse it's the umpteenth time he's expressed it - this is a new page, and there is a new audience, and what he's saying is on-topic.
The only thing there that feels uncivil is "renaming idiocy". I wouldn't have phrased it that way, but you know - we had the communications department trying to tell us that Wikipedia can't be confused with Wikipedia, and that the Foundation is respecting the community by utterly ignoring the one piece of input the community gave to the process. I don't think those two words justified going off on him like you did.
So why you might not have intentionally tried to use civility to shut down conversation, that's what, from my perspective, you did. I think you're not aware of doing this - I'll use this as an example of a place where you tried to make a civility argument to justify the use of an inaccurate graphic. That makes me more sensitive to similar cases, as it seems like that the communications department is trying to ignore criticism while funding those who they agree with. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 19:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The top of the page has a standard banner that says "Remain civil and polite during discussions." If you think those comments fit into that guidance, then we can just agree to disagree. I have different standards for respectful and fruitful conversations, that's all. Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: I sort of think this is an example of the problems with Communications, writ small. You make a statement, and then a case is made that it is wrong. Rather than trying to convince that you're right, the communications department walks away, and acts as if the objections aren't there. That works until the statements have tangible consequences, at which point it blows up, always in the Foundation's face. Sänger posts aren't perfect, but in many ways they're more respectful than the main space page, which was unclear enough to require clarification as to what this was even about. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)