Talk:Values/2016 discussion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Values Based Organization Development[edit]

One document in particular, entitled Values Based Organization Development, was linked to from Anthere's original post but is now a dead link. The 2009 strategy proposal about values gives more details about its provenance.

It is apparently an article by John D. Vogelsang, contained in the second volume of the Journal for Nonprofit Management ("Values Based Approaches to Leadership and Management"), published in 1998.

Unfortunately, it seems that the first eight volumes are no longer accessible online. I have reached out to the contact person mentioned on the page to ask if that issue could be made available again. I'll follow up here if/when I get a response. guillom 22:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

While the early volumes are not available online, I have been sent a scan of the second volume, which includes the aforementioned article. It's a useful document. Let me know if you're interested in reading it. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I've also found an online version in the Internet Archive. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Integrity[edit]

I oppose the addition of this buzzword. Nemo 09:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Care to make an argument against it? (Other than the implicit: "because it isI have declared it a buzzword") Ijon (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Moralism has always been used by WMF against the disadvantaged minorities in Wikimedia. And don't get me started on examples. Additionally, the word is hard to translate (probably because language on moralism varies a lot across cultures).
If anything, I think we should instead use concepts which clearly spell out what we mean and then refine the exact wording. For instance disinterested (WMF board members are regularly accused of egotism or worse; might be non-obvious), or uncompromising/principled/focused on long-term goals (this seems to be the point of the message which is mentioned for whatever reason in the page; hard to judge), or clean (as in any judgement? criminal charges? convictions? police?; some keep asking it, e.g. mentioning the 2007 CFO facts, but I see a lot of room for abuse). I have absolutely no idea which of these (or others) people here meant when saying "integrity".
Once the proposal is clarified, then it can be discussed. Otherwise we might as well throw dices and add a random selection of words from wikt:Wikisaurus:good. Nemo 09:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

I'm trying to understand why this discussion has been initiated. What is the problem that we are trying to solve? In the description I read "There isn't currently a shared understanding among the staff and other constituents of what our core values are, and how we express them in our work". So when exactly is this a problem? What kind of daily work situation is it, that calls for such a shared understanding? Is there now a general lack of understanding, or is there a division of various conflicting (not shared) understandings? Is this about situations, where one person behaved in a way that made others angry and these others tried to correct that person by referring to "our core values", and then it turned out the core values are not shared? Or how? --LA2 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello; The motivation of this page is a summary of the longer motivation outlined in the framing. Perhaps the longer version answers your question better? Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)