User talk:Robert McClenon/Governance

like any large organization?
hi Robert McClenon, thank u for creating this essay, which i found my way to from your post at arbcom consideration of action relating to WMF's recent office action. Seems like a very good point to make, that Wikipedia governance is lacking/inflexible/not-developing-to-address-some-important-stuff, in particular is not handling bullying-type behavior. In the office action case, I personally pick up on the aspect of too-intense/unwelcome following of newbies or others as being a serious problem. If review/following of an editor is unlimited and unwelcome, and a follower editor conveys that they will never stop, that is intolerable in my view. You might have different views about the office action case, perhaps, but we agree that Wikipedia governance does not address some kind(s) of undesireable behaviors that go on in Wikipedia. Towards developing this thinking, I sort of object to the current wording in the essay referring to Wikipedia being like any large organization (Current sentence: "Most of its volunteer contributors are making their best efforts to contribute to the encyclopedia, but, as in any large organization, problems sometimes occur, and mechanisms are needed to resolve issues.").

Wikipedia is NOT like any large organization; it is very different from all large organizations that most Wikipedians have experience with. In real life we all have experience with schools and employers and sports and recreation organizations; some of us may have longterm experience with online communities but many of us do not. About bullying that goes on here of the too-intense-following type, it is different than what most of us know about. It could not go on like it does in Wikipedia in any employment situation; it would be too clearly be like stalking, and normal management and HR and peer actions/interventions would step up and stop it. And personal, in-person interaction would be present. I am sure that some unwelcome following in Wikipedia (that is like stalking elsewhere) can be understood in various charitable ways, e.g. as deriving from followers' being insensitive to their effects, and insulated from direct feedback of, say, literally seeing their effects, like seeing a victim cry on a playground. And insulated from blowback/consequences/interventions, like when a manager would simply reassign one or both parties to different departments to break up some toxic interactions going on. The following/bullying in Wikipedia can go on and on and on for a decade or more and might never stop, and from the victims' experiences be overwhelming/suffocating/oppressive to an extent that won't happen in other large organizations that we mostly have experience with.

So, about the sentence in the essay, there is a valid point that of course there are problems in this big organization because of its size. But I think this organization is very different from others, and there are ways that Wikipedia is uniquely well-suited and uniquely poorly-suited to dealing with certain challenges. I would hope the essay could go into some differentiation, and avoid any impression of an excuse from bigness. I don't think you mean to suggest an excuse that bullying happens because we are big, and that is just part of the territory because we are big, but I would like for the essay to more clearly avoid that. Thanks again for your posting the essay. --Doncram (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What next...
I came across this essay when I searched for both Fram and unblockable.

I agree with some of the points you made. There are other points I am not sure I understand, due to lack of context. You refer to User:BU Rob13's resignation. Should I look to whereever BU Rob13's resignation, to understand the essay more fully?

Do you want further input, my input, on the essay? Or, are you keeping it for historical reasons? Geo Swan (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)