Katherine Maher on current NPOV tag Trump BLP

[Larkin]

Interesting Twitter thread from Katherine https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1179 ... 09664?s=20

Thoughts?

BTW I happen to like and support Katherine. Please be courteous and don't use my post to slag her off. Thanks.

[Graaf Statler]

O, if you was the victim of some collateral damage my excuses.

It is a very cynical tweet. That's my thought. The tweet is absolute not positive in the direction of what you should call the wiki community.

And she has every reasons for that.
Because the attitude of Wikipedians to the female leaders of WMF is disgusting and fits somewhere deep in the middle east in my opinion.

And in my opinion is someones sexual preference something for between the sheets and a 100% private matter. I don't want peeps to judge over my sex life, so I don't do that over other people there sexual preference. Exception :Children, but that ist nicht im frage.
Because it has really nothing to do with the way she is doing here work,I saw in the last interview she is in no way some bitchy lesbian. She was extreem kind to the male interviewer.

Well, that is my thought about the tweet and her.

[Kumioko]

Interesting Twitter thread from Katherine https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1179 ... 09664?s=20

Thoughts?

BTW I happen to like and support Katherine. Please be courteous and don't use my post to slag her off. Thanks.

Oh she's been great for the donors but she is horrible at leading the organization when it comes to interacting with the community; innovation in the WMF; holding employees accountable, etc. She's not a leader, she's not a CEO, she just wants to build up her resume and travel around at the donors expense.

[CrowsNest]

Sticking to the specific topic I can honestly say I don't really understand what her point is.

I literally couldn't even begin to offer an informed comment.

Except to point out that given her background is in communications, it's disappointing that she can be so....unclear.

Putting aside her possible message, it's clear Wikipedia has serious problems with preventing high profile, high traffic articles, from undergoing wildly inappropriate changes. The introduction of someone's biography should never really contain this much detail of a recent/ongoing event whose importance is at best unclear....

In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for political purposes. The inquiry emerged over revelations that Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and other top administration officials repeatedly pressured the government of Ukraine to investigate 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son. According to the testimony of multiple White House officials, this was part of a widespread ongoing campaign and cover-up to illegally advance Trump's personal and political interests by abusing the power of the presidency. On October 3, 2019, Trump openly pressed China to begin a criminal investigation of Biden, having previously told them that he has "tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want."

....and it should scare her that it really does take a big dirty tag before it is fixed, and even then only six hours later. Even worse, it's looking like that bloated mess wasn't added just before it was tagged, but might have been there for days, while the Wikipedians argued endlessly over it on the talk page. We definitely know it took Wikipedia twelve whole hours to recognize the last line was a problem and needed removing.

A clear example of the failure of the governance system (partly due to apathy, partly due to bureaucracy) to quickly sort the wheat from the chaff in the discussion areas, and make decisive actions based on policy, for the good of the reader.

[Graaf Statler]

A clear example of the failure of the governance system (partly due to apathy, partly due to bureaucracy) to quickly sort the wheat from the chaff in the discussion areas, and make decisive actions based on policy, for the good of the reader.

O, absolute. Something she knows too of course.
I think she waits till the whole circus collaps just like we do and then start over from the sketch within the WMF structure. Because that is in my opinion the only option and solution.

[Graaf Statler]

Oh she's been great for the donors but she is horrible at leading the organization when it comes to interacting with the community; innovation in the WMF; holding employees accountable, etc. She's not a leader, she's not a CEO, she just wants to build up her resume and travel around at the donors expense.

Ever thought out why she is great for the donors? Because she smiles so sweet? Because she is absolute good looking? Sure Kum?

No, she is great for the donors because she understand dammed weel what she has to sell! And that is not a shitty wiki content who belongs to no one, or a bunch of shitheads and lunatics, no that is the unique infrastructure and organisation what WMF has build the last years with Google preference!

Dump the lunatics and shitheads worldwide, replace them by real professionals, and let all the wiki lunatics take there wikishit, the content what they have in all these years with them to there own place!

It is about time you stupide fucks start to understand what really is going on instate of shitting the place here!

[ericbarbour]

this isn't a bad post, she has a point. What gets ME: the very first comment posted came from that consummate Wikipedia ass-nozzle and "resident Wiki-approved SEO professional" Hochman.

Maher, IMO, isn't a great WMF leader or a bad one. They already HAD the worst one possible (Jimbo), followed by a bad one (Gardner) followed by a passable one who was forced out because Wiki-Shits didn't like her (Tretikov). Maher no doubt sees the WMF as just another resume padding job. Knowing how institutionally fucked-up the place is, I can't blame her for not getting too invested in their petty internal politics.