[Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening

[Jason donovan]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>wrote:

>
> > On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> >> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want
> and
> >> they
> >> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a
> general
> >> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled.  This
> >> situation
> >> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public
> >> relations
> >> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set
> of
> >> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take
> the
> >> other duties that are desired seriously.  I don't know how much hiring
> you
> >> have
> >> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to
> what
> >> their
> >> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things
> they
> >> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult.  So if you
> want a
> >> new
> >> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing
> a
> >> more
> >> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to
> >> apply
> >> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit.
> >> Narrow
> >> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening.  Wide-ranging
> and
> >> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening.
>
> on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipedia at frontier.com wrote:
>
> > This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described
> > is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a
> > somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and
> > allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation
> > I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different
> > positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background,
> > skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for
> > us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the
> > hiring process in how we think about the position.
> >
> Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how
> detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at
> the heart of this Project?
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Wikimedia Foundation seems to be turning into another non-profit bent on
social outreach. The internal structure appears to be mutating into
something very corporate, from the constant direction of
consultants/analysts to expansion into emerging markets. They all seem to
resemble any other corporation trying to expand, overlooking that fact that
the actual product is governed and maintained by an active community which
is responsible for most of the content.

One look at the current staff page points to the flawed vision of the
internal structure, with titles like chief talent and culture officer, which
sounds more like a job from a futuristic science fiction or even a cult, a
successful one of course. The fundraising part of the staff seems to be
under the community department, communications seems to be under global
development. There seems to be only one person in the finance and
administration department.

Chief propaganda officer doesn't seem to be far behind, unless you prefer
raconteur which is more or less the same title.


Jason