User:Cremastra/complaint: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
format for readability |
Nosebagbear (talk | contribs) As this is not a suggestion to improve it but a refutation of its attempts to speak for me, the addition of a section and associated reasoning |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
We want to feel proud of the WMF, not ashamed. '''The community does the editing, so the community should get to decide where the money goes'''. |
We want to feel proud of the WMF, not ashamed. '''The community does the editing, so the community should get to decide where the money goes'''. |
||
=== Interested parties === |
=== Interested parties === |
||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
# [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) – please see comments in [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|Talk]] |
# [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) – please see comments in [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|Talk]] |
||
# Broadly in agreement. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 10:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
# Broadly in agreement. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 10:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
=== Editors that oppose the message, or its implications=== |
|||
#[[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 15:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC) - This is not a "we the undersigned" message. This message gives a "many" without demonstrating any proof that it indeed represents the consensus of the community on the statements within. I dispute almost every statement within it. I oppose the hyperbole given by using Certes' phrasing here, I oppose that the amended fundraising banners are misleading users, I oppose that expenditure on projects other than English Wikipedia using a non-hypothecated sum of money is flawed or the golden parachutes are fundamentally flawed, I oppose that I feel "ashamed" of the WMF despite my myriad disagreements over the past 5 years and I firmly oppose the concept that we topple down the rabbit holes implied by both tone and content within this message. The only true community open letter complaint since 2018 I'm aware of is the [[meta:COLOR]] which came after '''a year''' of attempted resolution and clearly demonstrated community concerns (to the tune of a global consensus) and zero effective action to remediate the concerns. And it '''still''' evidenced every statement and didn't indicate support beyond what it could prove. |
|||
Revision as of 15:18, 18 August 2023
Draft letter of complaint to the WMF
 | This is a work-in-progress letter by Wikipedia editors. All editors are welcome to sign, or discuss improvements on the talkpage. |  |
Dear Wikimedia Foundation,
Many editors are concerned with your spending in what we believe to be off-topic grants. There are also complaints against the misleading fundraising banners, which seem to insinuate there is a threat that, as Certes put it, unless that $3 appears, a bankrupt WMF will have to auction off Wikipedia to become a buyer's personal playground.
(link)
Not only do you mislead readers with these fundraising banners, you also use your money to give grants to unrelated projects and give employees "golden parachutes". We, the editors who actually do the ground work on the project, ask that the WMF listen to our concerns.
We want to support the WMF, but find it difficult in the midst of such issues. Listen to our concerns. Take our input.
We want to feel proud of the WMF, not ashamed. The community does the editing, so the community should get to decide where the money goes.
Interested parties
- Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Certes (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) – please see comments in Talk
- Broadly in agreement. Andreas JN466 10:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Editors that oppose the message, or its implications
- Nosebagbear (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC) - This is not a "we the undersigned" message. This message gives a "many" without demonstrating any proof that it indeed represents the consensus of the community on the statements within. I dispute almost every statement within it. I oppose the hyperbole given by using Certes' phrasing here, I oppose that the amended fundraising banners are misleading users, I oppose that expenditure on projects other than English Wikipedia using a non-hypothecated sum of money is flawed or the golden parachutes are fundamentally flawed, I oppose that I feel "ashamed" of the WMF despite my myriad disagreements over the past 5 years and I firmly oppose the concept that we topple down the rabbit holes implied by both tone and content within this message. The only true community open letter complaint since 2018 I'm aware of is the meta:COLOR which came after a year of attempted resolution and clearly demonstrated community concerns (to the tune of a global consensus) and zero effective action to remediate the concerns. And it still evidenced every statement and didn't indicate support beyond what it could prove.