On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se
wrote:
Thanks Ting for some very interesting thoughts and for
giving a few ideas
of alternative set up of the movement. It ought to be a good input to the
session"re-imagine Wikipedia movement" on Saturday at the Chapter Meeitng
My reflection is that you are discussing a more decentralized approach,
thinking todays is too centralized.
But I do not see that you discuss the real radical decentralized model.
Skip WMF and the Board, and let each project take care of it self including
steering and financing. And as all info and software is free this can be
realty momentary, if wished, the only hindrance is the use of the Logo
I have in my mind worked through this for my pet project: Wikipedia for
Swedish language And as far as I can see it would be doable. The cost for
running that project on completely separate servers would be very moderate
and the operations and board for WMSE is already a good way in
professionalization and would probably be able to handle, both the issue of
server operations and getting financing, a few million dollar/year would
probably be enough to run both chapter and servers
But would I as a committed contributer like this scenario. No (at least
not for now).
I am very happy that software is developed in one place to ensure it is
not getting out of date. And I am happy all servers are run by one
organization, bot to ensure quality but also good interconnection between
the servers/project. Wikidata (as commons) also shows there are
opportunistic in getting the project more integrated. Also I am very
impressed in the professional way WMF runs the funding activities, and to
be honest I know that even a rich country like Sweden is an net receiver of
fundings from the people in US (shame on us swedes). So I have no interest
of having the funding more decentralized (besides utilizing some local
sponsors better).
And I would be unhappy if the divergence between project became too big,
POV paid editing etc we will be stronger as a totality if we abide to the
same base guidelines
So I question your urge and need to decentralize. For am as a contributer
the most important part is that I know my inputs is securely stored and
will not be misused by actors like google or plain advertising. And for
this reason I believe in a centralized structure as about today (for now)
Anders
The thing that I'm most concerned about with regards to "local" fundraising
is the target audience and the fundraising entity. Who is (for example)
WMDE to have the monopoly on fundraising on de.wiki? (just as who is the
WMF to have the total monopoly on fundraising?) With a radically
distributed funding infrastructure, would that mean that the entities that
do the fundraising and collect the funds also become responsible for that
part of the infrastructure they are raising funds on? If so, who becomes
responsible for overarching infrastructure? Would it lead to inefficient
fracturing of the communities, and possibly infrastructure (not only the
hardware infrastructure, but also programmatic work)? Should we give the
donors the choice who they want to fund, WMDE or WMF (or some thorg, or a
different chapter)? Isn't this massively confusing?
I have no answers to any of these questions, but I'm happy it's on the
agenda.
--Martijn Hoekstra
Ting Chen skrev 2014-04-10 13:23:
Hello dear all,
now the second mail
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>