Joe --
I'm not clear on what you intend to accomplish with sending this email to us. Not that I don't agree with much that you wrote, but I feel it's not reaching anyone by posting it to this list.
One point I'll raise here is that all of this talk about a "Wikimedia movement" means nothing to me. My role in the projects has been to contribute content, which I've done for almost 21 years, usually funded out of my own pocket or using public resources: I started with only the books from my shelves or those my local public library provided, & today I still rely heavily on both to create content (although much more useful information has since emerged on the Internet), the stuff that brings people to Wikipedia (& the other projects). The Foundation has done little more to help in this endeavor than keeping the servers online & the software patched.
(A side note here. Many years ago, I mentioned to Danese Cooper the possibility of providing grants to average contributors like me. Her response floored me: "And how do you contribute to me?" I was speechless. Bitch, I am one of hundreds who helped to build the website that pays your salary. BTW, I didn't miss her when she left a few months later.)
I'll confess that part of this disconnect between Foundation & volunteer community is due to the fact we volunteers expected little more than those two -- running the servers & maintaining the software -- from the Foundation. On my part, I doubted the Foundation would ever raise the amount of money that they have. But having this money allowed the WMF to hire people who then had to find stuff to do to justify their jobs, & due to the Common Carrier law the staff felt they had to keep the projects at arm's length. This has given us, on one hand, the UCoC; on the other, donations to admittedly worthy causes that have nothing to do with Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project. As well as led to this interest in this undefined "Wikimedia movement".
So far I suspect all this "Wikimedia movement" will accomplish is an excuse to fly people around the world in order to have meetings that will only produce more meetings that require people to fly around the world, regardless of what anyone inside or outside of the Foundation sincerely intended. Oh, & it'll also produce impressive-sounding lines on their resumes.
I don't know if this is helpful feedback, Joe, but I appreciate the opportunity to vent here. I can think of less productive places to do that.
Geoff Burling en.wikipedia: llywrch
On 2023-08-29 14:30, Joe Mabel wrote:
The following is *not *a "strictly confidential communication." Still, I'd appreciate that if you want to quote me in a broader forum, please clear that with me first. Thanks. (The obvious exception is what I've already said publicly, which I've noted below.)
This morning I attended one of the eight "engagement sessions" for the 2024 Wikimedia Summit at which I will represent Cascadia Wikimedians in April. The Summit will probably be the last meaningful chance for input to the Movement Charter, which will probably determine a great deal about Wikimedia governance going forward, including (indirectly, but almost without a doubt) a lot about how money and resources are allocated. I think the process is well-intentioned and may well produce positive results, but I have some concerns.
Before anything else, let me note that relations between the upper echelons of the WMF and the community of editors and contributors are tremendously better than it was a decade or so ago, where it seemed to me to be primarily oppositional. I do think we are now at least generally trying to pull in the same direction, and that the WMF is genuinely trying to do what they think is best for the community, and even has at least a fair understanding of what that entails. I would not have said any of that in the mid-2010s.
Now the concerns:
- I raised this one publicly at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&o..., which you may quote freely. Because the "community" (vs. Foundation) involvement for the conference is entirely through affiliates and user groups -- not through "projects" such as Commons -- there is no overt representation at the Summit either for projects (such as Commons, or WikiProjects) or the many users, probably the majority of users, whose involvement is strictly on-wiki. If you are part of an online Wikimedia community that has concerns you would like represented in Berlin in April, you would do well to identify those concerns and organize them in a way that they can be brought into the discussion by one or more of us who are already attending. I do not think the organizers are going to do anything proactive to address this concern.
- It looks like the tentative intent is to create a Global Council
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Content/Global_Council) that will represent the broader "movement" community. This is clearly well-intentioned but (a) I think it at least potentially suffers from exactly the same flaw in terms of omission that I mentioned in the section above, and the people who are liable to be disenfranchised by that will not be in the room to discuss it. Also, (b) I fear something like the UN General Assembly: a "talking shop" with little or no actual power, thick with bloviators and boondogglers.
- Related: I think there is a bit too much focus on structures that
correspond to overt money flows (hence that failure to recognize on-wiki activity). And, I have to say, money is often spent in weird ways in the WMF world. I do think face-to-face national and international gatherings can be very valuable, but it's worth realizing that about 90% of what WMF has ever spent on Cascadia Wikimedians has been to fly some of us halfway around the world and put us up in hotels for conferences. When it comes to doing locally-focused events, where we might be able to do quite a bit with a small budget, let alone hiring a grant writer of our own, we are lucky to have a budget for paper plates and cookies, let alone any publicity, or anyone compensated for their time and effort. I'm guessing that the drinks-and-food budget for an event at a Portland bar that Peaceray and I attended a couple of months ago with several of the C-level WMF people was about the size of the biggest annual budget Cascadia Wikimedians ever had. (Could be off by a factor of two, but not more.) What it costto fly half a dozen people from the Bay Area to Portland dwarfs that annual budget.
- Combining points 2 and 3: WMF has its own, effective, fundraising.
The only other entity I'm aware of in the Wikimedia world that has a comparable budget is Wikimedia Deutschland (it's no accident that the Summit is in Berlin). Money is power. And I have a lot of doubt about the power of any entity that is set up that does not have its own source of money. (Cue Billie Holliday's recording of "God Bless the Child".)
Open to any feedback, especially thoughts on the draft Charter and things people want me to bring into the discussion in Berlin next spring.
JM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- wikimedia-cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-cascadia-leave@lists.wikimedia.org