I think the nub of this debate is between those who see decentralisation as
inherently inefficient as in Phoebe's comment
/"decentralization is important" raises a whole bunch of other
important questions: is decentralization more important than efficiency as a
working principle?"
And those of us who see centralisation as inherently inefficient.
This is partly a philosophical debate, though hopefully one where most of us
are mid spectrum..I suspect most of us can think of things which work better
decentralised, and also things which work better when centralised.
Personally I'm a moderate decentralist - my experience is that in general
decentralised solutions work better than centralised ones, but I'm
sufficiently moderate as to concede that sometimes centralisation works
best.
As far as the Wikimedia movement is concerned I suspect that decentralised
solutions are more likely to be "efficient"/successful because they are more
compatible with the ethos of the community, and especially when knowledge of
cultural and legal quirks is important.
Remember we are a worldwide movement. Having a diverse group of people who
understand their own culture and are tolerant of others is a viable and
successful model for this. A centralised group making global decisions that
work in varied cultures is much more difficult model to make work. How many
people do we have who truly understand more than two or three of our globe's
cultures? Centralisation is much more difficult than decentralisation when
you are operating across multiple cultures. - I'd be interested if anyone
can point to an efficient despite being centralised model that we could crib
from.
Sometimes centralisation is more efficient, for example IT, wherever I am in
the world I can edit the same wikis. But Tax systems are not centralised -
if we want tax privileges in as many countries as possible then a
decentralised model is inherently more efficient. Centralised fundraising
has left us overly dependent on the generousity of US donors, though I
appreciate that the fundraising team has tried to move away from that.. But
the last figures I've seen show a US based fundraising team that raises most
of their funds in the US.
WereSpielChequers
> Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The Board
> agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles. To my mind
> "decentralization is important" raises a whole bunch of other important
> questions: is decentralization more important than efficiency as a working
> principle? How do we also implement decentralized dispute resolution when
> two entities disagree? How do we make sure people who don't consider
> themselves aligned with any particular body, including readers and donors,
> are represented in decision making? Who allots funds; who makes sure funds
> keep coming in? Who is responsible for keeping wikipedia.org up and alive?
> How do we align the WMF's specific legal responsibilities with those of a
> decentralized movement? (These and many more questions are also part of the
> movement roles project discussions, btw; see meta).
>
> One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that there
> are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and haven't applied
> for many grants to date, and thus have little to no money to support
> program
> work. Though mostly outside the scope of the Board's letter, this is for
> instance one part of our model that I would like to see change --
> Wikimedians everywhere should have better access to resources to get things
> done. On this specific point, I do disagree with Birgitte -- I think a
> well-developed grants program [and it's true we're not there yet, but want
> to be soon] could actually help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain
> money needed for program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to
> develop the (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly
> fundraise with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns.
>
> The point raised by Anthere and Delphine elsewhere that developing
> fundraising capabilities helps chapters mature is worth noting and
> certainly
> historically true, but is that the best course of affairs, or are there
> other paths of development that would be better? I do agree wholeheartedly
> that the WMF should invest in helping everyone get better at fundraising
> and
> management (and PR, and other essential skills...)
>
> -- phoebe, speaking for herself not the board or staff
>
>
Thinking loudly: I think that something like like button for edits
would give more reasons to continue with editing. Those who like would
have to go to diffs, which would leave the button to more engaged
editors and thus almost strictly internal community issue. Could be
discussed more about options and technical implementation.
Thoughts?
While Huib has been blocked on Meta, he is still member of LangCom, as
he has never made anything wrong in relation to his work as LangCom
member. Thus, if he asks something on IRC or wherever in relation to
his LangCom duties, please consider his requests as you would do if
the request has been made by any other LangCom member. (His requests
are presently usually related to handling proposals for closing
projects and the fact that he is not able to edit Meta presently.)
A few points about Kyrill's statement, and a proposal.
Firstly the idea that the work done by the chapters "could just as
easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost." Cost
isn't everything, and I suspect the chapters are more likely to be
able to adapt things to their local culture. But the WMF is sited in a
high wage area by global standards, so I suspect that many chapters
can do better especially where they have volunteers who speak the
language and live in the culture. So even if cheapest turns out to be
best, the WMF might not be the cheapest option as often as you think.
Secondly "The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide
over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax
benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of
the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits
are a significant consideration for the average donor." Again this is
something where decentralisation gives you an advantage. I'm aware
that in the US the tax benefit accrues to the donor, and I can
understand Kyrill's comment might make sense in such a tax regime
(though I suspect it is still wrong, as I'd be truly astonished if we
tested it and found there was no uplift on donations that were tax
deductible). But here in the UK much of the tax advantage accrues to
the charity, so it isn't just extra credibility with the donor, it is
an extra 28% top up from the taxman to the charity. I don't know how
other countries do this, but that is the glory of a decentralised
system - we can rely on the local chapters to have such local
knowledge. Also this rather misses the point that some funds are only
available to charities.
Thirdly "The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter --
has no inherent right to lead the movement. We may choose to _allow_
it to lead, of course -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate
that it is worthy of such a role, not for everyone else to prove that
it isn't." Decentralisation does not mean that any one particular
chapter gets to lead the movement, or even that the chapters
collectively get to lead the movement. Those who advocate
decentralisation of power are not actually arguing that any particular
chapter should lead the movement, after all that would just be
centralisation with a different centre. Power does not necessarily
have to be centralised, in a decentralised movement the WMF would
almost certainly still have far more budget and influence than any
individual chapter.
One possible way to decentralise whilst maintaining or even improving
fiscal accountability would be to replace the Audit committee with a
group audit committee. I'm familiar with this model here in the UK in
our not for profit housing sector - basically multiple organisations
in the same group are audited by the same committee. To keep the
committee to a manageable size you wouldn't have every chapter on it
every year, and you would probably continue to have independents as
now. But I would hope you'd avoid having a majority from any one
continent let alone one country. Also as a matter of good governance
there should be a separation of powers - none of our treasurers should
serve on it without at least a break of a year since serving as a
treasurer.
WereSpielChequers
>
> Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters "participating" in
> the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying
> fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words --
> is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of
> administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as
> easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. The only real
> advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated
> fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction;
> and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what
> extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average
> donor.
>
> A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would give a chapter the
> right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by
> the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF. But what chapters seem to
> want is for the WMF to sign over the trademarks they need to do their own
> fundraising, and then simply hand over a portion of the WMF's own revenue on
> top of that. It's a convenient arrangement for the chapters involved, to be
> sure, and apparently one that the WMF was not particularly unwilling to
> follow; but there's nothing particularly "normal" or "fair" about it.
>
>
>> Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything
>> that does not maximize donations is laughable. The obvious solution to the
>> stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen
>> fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing
>> donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to
>> make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually
>> undesirable and should not be pursued.
>
>
> I don't see the concern as either unstated or undesirable. Why shouldn't
> the WMF lead the movement? Or, to put it another way, why should the WMF
> cede its leadership role to an amorphous collective of chapters, which --
> unlike the WMF -- has no clear leadership, may or may not enjoy a suitable
> level of organizational maturity, and is subject to a hodgepodge of local
> legal systems which may or may not be friendly to the Wikimedia mission?
> The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent
> right to lead the movement. We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course
> -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a
> role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't.
>
> Kirill
>
>
Dear friends,
At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European
world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived
reality in India and South Africa.
We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd
like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within
India and South Africa.
There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.
The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well
as the findings and results:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations
A film made on the project is available here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=Medi…http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv
or
http://vimeo.com/26469276
There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within
the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project.
At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on
this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.
There are still some things to come, namely:
- Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project
(as they happen)
- Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result
of the project (as they happen)
- English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle track
for further translation (we could use some help here).
We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader
discussion.
Best wishes,
Achal
During these discussions we must keep in mind the laws of the
countries involved. I am not a lawyer and thus will leave the
specifics to the legal counsel of my chapter (Wikimedia Canada) and
the WMF. But from my lay understanding a Canadian chapter is not
allowed to just funnel tax deductible donations to an American entity.
As a Canadian entity is the only one that is able to give tax
deductions to Canadian donors the question is how much difference does
this make. We are currently in the process of applying to the Canadian
Revenue Agency to get charity status and will have a better
understanding of how much difference this makes over the next couple
of years.
I agree that all within the movement need to be accountable for how
money is spent to make sure that there is maximal benefit per dollar.
I would be in agreement with the amount of money directly funneled to
a chapter being related to how much benefit that chapter generates for
the movement (local laws allowing this). If for example bringing tax
deductability increases donation by 50% than monies should be split
50/50. If a chapter is not tax deductible there would be less
restriction on financial agreements and I see less concerns with
keeping finances more centralized (monies going to the WMF and grants
being given to the chapters).
--
James Heilman, MD, CCFP(EM)
Wikipedian, Wikimedia Canada
On 8/8/2011 6:24 PM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> fwiw, the Wikisource portal lists all languages, inc. the languages in
> the Wikisource incubator.
>
> http://www.wikisource.org/
That's actually a good shortcut and it appears amongst the Wikimedia
buttons at the bottom of the all the root project pages.
However - the average first time user may get lost before ever drilling
in on these buttons.
Perhaps a bunch of cross reference links are in order - *but* who is
going to take the time to find all the references to <my indigenous
language/dialect> and add these where needed? Is there a way to automate
this process? (well yes, but it isn't that simple to write code that is
comprehensive enough to do the job - that would spawn a new project)
Hello,
On WikiMania it was brought to my attention by a user that there is a
account Abigor langcom. He asked me why I created that account...
Since editting meta is blocked for me, I would like to state here after
asking to a trusted user how I should react that this account is not created
by me. And I would like to see it blocked (if not already done so) and a
checkuser preformed so we can see who created it.
Thank you,
--
Kind regards,
Huib Laurens
WickedWay.nl