[Foundation-l] wikicouncil

[Florence Devouard]

Marc Riddell wrote:
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>> on 12/30/07 11:46 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9 at yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> First problem: who can be defined as a community member ? What is
>>>> community ? We worked on that problem a year ago during the chapter
>>>> meeting and no satisfactory solution was found.
>>>>
>>> Florence,
>>>
>>> This is a rather critical question here in the Project. References to
>>> "Community", "the Community", "Community Member(s)", etc., are made nearly
>>> every day throughout the various communications. When you worked on the
>>> problem a year ago, what was the final conclusion as to a definition of
>>> "Community" as relates to the Projects?
>>>
>>> Marc Riddell
> 
> on 12/31/07 6:26 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9 at yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>> Unfortunately, not satisfying answer. Community is too amorphous a concept.
>>
>> In its largest meaning, community is "human population". The people we
>> are working to create content for.
>>
>> Some, in particular with regards to elections, consider that "community"
>> is "every person interested in what we are doing". This will be a reason
>> why some will consider that Larry Lessig, though not a participant of
>> our projects, though not knowing anything of our internal workings, is a
>> community member.
>>
>> A more restricted definition will be "every person involved in what we
>> are doing". That will involve editors, but also our developers for
>> example. Note that some members of our internal community belong to this
>> group, though they have hardly ever be editors; we would nevertheless
>> consider them as "part of the community". Note that this definition is
>> not the one followed by current elections (people who are developers,
>> and have hardly ever edited do not have the right to vote).
>> I consider more or less this definition as being the definition of "the
>> organization community".
>>
>> An even more restricted definition is "those who have at least xxx edits
>> on one of our projects". This is the current election definition for voters.
>>
>> Of course, even the more restricted definition of community allow
>> further division. There is the Wikipedia community, the Wiktionary
>> community, the Wikibooks community (the first being dominant but the
>> other ones fighting for their recognition and the recognition of their
>> own specificities, which is good). Then, there is the english community,
>> french community, japanese community. And every mix we could imagine,
>> english wikipedia, german wikibooks, spanish wiktionary.
>>
>> I'll be happy to add there the mediawiki community, overlapping largely
>> with all others.
>>
>> And it would be fair to say that there are two other communities, which
>> to the contrary of ALL others, are closed and very little flexible. The
>> internal community, and the comcom community.
>>
>> And I think I can not leave aside the chapter communities, which is also
>> a group of sort.
>>
>> I probably forget a couple of communities...
>>
>> The meeting in oct 06 was unable to decide what "community" was, because
>> it is simply impossible. However, I thought we should have tried to work
>> on the definition of "community" meaning with regards to representativity.
>>
>> --------
>>
>> The current situation at the board level is broken, because we stated
>> that "we want a majority coming from community" (through elections or
>> appointement), but without defining what community is.
>>
>> So, current situation is that for example, some are arguing that
>> Jan-Bart is not from the community; but others are arguing that he is
>> from the community. Both statements are correct, depending on the
>> definition. For JB, it is probably very hurting to tell him "you are an
>> outsider", however, he has never put his hands in the practical job.
>>
>> For example, some are arguing that Jimbo is not a community member,
>> whilst Jimbo argues that he is. He knows some of our communities, but it
>> would be fair to argue that he always had a special position, and as
>> such, can hardly represent those with no special position.
>>
>> For example, some argue that Larry Lessig is a community member, whilst
>> most do not. Larry knows part of the free world, does that mean he could
>> represent the editors or developers playing with the clay every day ?
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> What I would love seeing is a rather more granular definition of
>> community, without going radical. By and large, there is
>> * the editing community, and I would suggest breaking it down by
>> projects, then perhaps by languages if necessary
>> * the developer community
>> * the chapter community
>>
>> Each of these three communities would have a certain number of seats
>> reserved on the board, each seat being clearly labelled as "representing
>> the 1) editors, or 2) developers and 3) chapter, communities".
>>
>> It is up to these three communities to decide how they want to select
>> their representative.
>> I would freely suggest chapters could do so by direct vote of all
>> chapter members; it would make wonder to push chapters to get a common
>> voice.
>> I would freely suggest developers could do so by direct vote of all
>> developer members; with "eligeability" to vote being "have submitted at
>> least xx number of accepted patches, or whatever allow them to recognize
>> real developers from jerks".
>> I would freely suggest editing community to think of moving toward
>> indirect vote, thought the wikicouncil.
>>
>> All this draw a picture of three main communities.
>> * Those editing the projects
>> * Those helping through technical maintenance or software improvement
>> * Those facilitating content development, distribution and lobbying,
>> through legal structures (wikimedia chapters)
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> We could imagine 6 seats being reserved for these three communities.
>> Such as 1 for developer, 2 for chapters and 3 for editors.
>>
>> That would let 5 seats. Which could be filled up directly by board
>> itself through appointment, or be filled up by a nominating committee,
>> if there is such thing one day.
>>
> Thank you very much for this, Florence. This is the most precise,
> well-articulated description of the various aspects of "community" as it
> applies to the Wikipedia Project I have seen to date.
> 
> Where your thoughts run in the practical direction of the concept of
> Community (voting & other decision-making areas) mine runs in a more
> intangible one: Anyone who contributes in a positive way to advance the
> values and goals of the Project.
> 
> Until recently, when I spoke of "The Wikipedia Community", I had been
> thinking, according to your breakdown above, specifically of the body of
> persons who actually edit the encyclopedia. And my goals have been to want
> this Community of persons to be regarded with dignity, respect and trust.
> For them to have a reasonable voice in the workings of the Project's
> administration and decision-making processes. And for them to have some
> semblance of control over their own fates within the Project.
> 
> This respect and trust must, of course, work both ways - We must earn it
> from each other.
> 
> I'm really just brainstorming without an umbrella here:
> 
> What I'm going for is more of a sense of community than a fact of community.
> A sense of belonging and loyalty that can be instilled and held only though
> the culture. It can begin by each person being honest and asking themselves
> what they are doing here and why.
> 
> One outstanding positive effect this sense of community pride would have on
> the Project itself is that persons are less likely to freely abuse a group
> they truly feel they are a part of. Would you burn down your house if you
> still felt it was your home?
> 
> A person who feels they have been valued by a community is less likely to
> abuse or harm it, or its members, if they feel they are still a part of it.
> 
> There needs to be a civility initiative in the Project that is reflected in
> every interaction. People need to compliment each other more, and cut each
> other some slack when they take risks and make some mistakes.
> 
> Take care of the new members of the Community, and remember they are
> learning about the culture with every new encounter and interaction.
> 
> Also, there could be something similar to a barnstar that we place on our
> User Pages ourselves saying something like "I am a proud Member of the
> Wikipedia Community" with a design such as a Globe similar to the WP Globe,
> but with a figure of a person at the N, S, E & W locations.
> 
> I would like to see placed at the top of the Wikipedia Main Page, a banner
> that says something like, "Be honest - be fair - be assertive, be civil."
> 
> Wikipedia: A Community of persons building and refining an Encyclopedia of
> knowledge - and trying to learn how to get along while doing it.
> 
> And these community values must be shared, practiced and reinforced every
> single day, by every single member: This is how it is here & This is how we
> are. And anyone not willing to share these values, must find a community
> more to their liking.
> 
> For civility and a sense of Community to truly be a part of Wikipedia's
> identity - they must first be a part of its bloodstream.
> 
> Be healthy in the new Year,
> 
> Marc

Very beautiful email Marc. Thank you for it.

Ant