Anthere wrote:
> Now that several people have expressed their feeling we are non
> transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
> situation, and make suggestions to improve.
Not non-transparent, quite; just not transparent enough. And I'm happy
to try and help think of suggestions.
> I have a problem with the equation
>
> board : amount of time spent answering personal mails + amount of time
> spend on OTRS + amount of time spent writing board meeting reports +
> amount of time spent writing to this list + amount of time spent on
> setting up a wikimedia foundation website + amount of time spent
> writing Quarto
>
> With
>
> Wikipedians : we are not informed.
>
> It does not fit :-)
Using this framework, I would like to analyze a small part of the problem.
A significant portion of the tasks you mention are important, but do
almost nothing to keep the community informed. Much of this is dealing
with people outside Wikimedia, which is important for public relations,
but not terribly relevant to internal lines of communication. The
Wikimedia website and OTRS particularly fall into this category. Quarto
mixes the two, but given its nature and time schedule, it works best at
the motivational and look-what-we've-accomplished aspects, not so much
the things that require feedback and interaction with the community
(that's not a criticism of the Quarto, I think it's wonderful at what it
does).
You mention answering personal mails. I would guess that again, many of
these deal more with the non-Wikimedia world. And some of the others
probably are just making you waste time in answering. As for the ones
that really are useful, if you answer them, what have you accomplished?
You've informed one person, that's all. The community at large has no
more information than before.
Consider that for this one person who asked, there may well be several
people with the same question who didn't ask. How do you know who they
are? You don't, so instead think about answering more of these questions
publicly, so there's at least a chance the other people will get that
information. I think you can judge which questions warrant public
answers, but I would venture that almost any time you've been asked the
same question twice by different people, you should be making the answer
publicly available.
This mailing list, or another one as appropriate to the topic, can be a
good place to do this, and I won't go into that item from your list
beyond that comment. However, with respect to writing board meeting
reports, other people have mentioned that it would be nice to see logs.
In fact, I would go farther than this - don't write reports at all! Do
less work for a change, because here I think other people can do it for
you. If you post the raw material and simply provide a link, those of us
who are really interested will read the whole thing, and people from
that group can produce a summary for the rest. That's part of the idea
behind a project like the Signpost.
> * exactly on which topic do you feel you are not informed ?
I'll mention one example for now. I've asked a few times on this list
about the progress with direct credit card payment processing (at least
twice, once after the last fundraiser and then following up later). I
don't recall that there was any response. Finally, in the latest board
meeting notes, it's mentioned that this is expected to be ready for the
current fundraiser. But even then, when I go to the fundraising page
right now, this option is still not there.
Well, time is short for all of us, this has been a long message, and
I'll have to wait to say more until later.
--Michael Snow
Hello, Bonjour, Guten Abend, Bon Giorno
I thought it would be nice to keep you posted how are fundraising drive is
going. It hasn't been twenty-four hours yet, but it is midnight, UTC.
So far, we have earned $13,219.74. That is 6.6 % of our primary objective of
$200,000. I am still trying to figure out how many people donated :-) Once I
do that, I will keep you posted.
A few things to note. I have been checking the numbers all day. It is the
first time I have had access to this information, and I just want to say how
rewarding it is. We have received quite a few donations of $100, but there are
also plenty of small donations. While the big donations are exciting, seeing
people give $1 or 1 euro, a small sum that they can afford, is also very
moving. It means that people want to help in any way they can.
Another thing to note is that seeing all the names, I don't recognize
anyone. In other words, we are having an impact far beyond our community of active
wikipedians. It is very rewarding to see that.
Well, that's all. Just wanted to keep you posted.
Danny
The Verba Volant mailing list <http://www.verba-volant.net/> sent a
mail to their subscribers today stating the service (which seems to be
sending out multilingual quotations) was "offered thanks to the
cooperation between Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/> and Logos
Group <http://www.logos.it/>."
To avoid any further confusion over this, there have been discussions
between Jimmy Wales, Logos, and other interested parties (namely,
Gerard and Sj), but any discussions have simply resulted, so far, in
some proposed ideas about how Logos might work with Wiktionary, not
Wikipedia as the mail suggested. Gerard has just put together a page
about this proposal at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logos.Wiktionary>. For background
information, please see
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Wiktionary>.
Discussion about any aspects of this proposal are still very welcome
on those meta pages, or on the Wiktionary mailing list, and the fact
that discussions regarding the proposed project are taking place with
external parties should not be seen as a reflection of any decision
already having been made. Comments by the existing Wiktionary
community, and anyone else interested, would be very valuable as we
move towards various decisions about the project.
Angela
I normally try to avoid "me too" posts, but I feel I should speak up to
say that I agree with virtually everything Erik Zachte wrote, and thank
him immensely for taking the time to compose that thoughtful message.
I want to add some thoughts on the transparency issue he raised. A very
critical part of managing any organization, especially one as committed
to ideals of openness as Wikimedia, is reporting back to everyone about
your activities. Given the transparency of most actions on a wiki,
producing such reports is especially important for off-wiki activity.
In particular this applies to the board, the officers (including those
of local chapters), and the developers. I trust all of these people and
the processes by which they were chosen, but we still need to hear from
all of them regularly about their work. The proliferation of non-public
mailing lists and wikis adds to the concern. I understand that some
matters cannot be announced at the outset, and that deliberation and
delay may allow for a more thorough report. But on the other hand,
disappearing behind closed doors, not to be heard from again, is not an
acceptable option.
With the developers this is a longstanding problem, and they struggle
constantly with more pressing issues, like a simple lack of manpower
(womanpower would certainly do as well if we can recruit some female
developers). I'm guessing we could use three or four times as many
developers before we'd have enough of them to spare one to spend much
time reporting. I think most people are willing to give a lot of slack
here as long as the sites keep running.
For the rest, because the issues they deal with are more frequently
"political", people will be more uncomfortable with a lack of
transparency. I see some effort to deal with this, but I'm afraid that
even among those of us who are deeply interested enough to be on this
list, people frequently feel out of the loop on issues of concern to
them. I have tried to contribute a little myself toward more thorough
reporting (and hope to help more in the future), but the overall task is
a full-time job and I already have one of those.
Keeping people informed is essential to sustaining trust, and makes a
tremendous difference in whether they will accept the decisions you make.
--Michael Snow
Summary:
I would like to offer 300 EURO (de:100, it:100, en:100 Euro) for the first
featured article (exzellenter Artikel/bella prosa) with ref. to South Tyrol.
1) Are there good reasons not to do it?
2) Could the fondation act as trustee?
_______________________________________________________
Hi Jimbo, dear fondations en/de/it,
On my to-do list is an item: "Write at least one excellent article about South
Tyrol". As you maybe know, my wife is not very happy that I spend too much
time with Wikipedia...
... so I think I have good reason to give someone some money if in exchange I
can delete an item from my to-do list and make my wife happy by that.
There where some really shocked replies when Achim proposed on de to give a
prize for good Wikipedia articles. Currently the state on de is something
like "prizes are ok, but not money":
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten
But I think I have good reasons to give money for a excellent article about my
home land. It's my home. And it's for my wife.
Some critics said, the article will be influenced by the money-giver.
To prevent this, I thought about the fondation to act as trustee:
- I give 300 Euro to the fondation (de?)
- The Wikipedians decide who are the winners of the contest
- If there is a winner, the fondation gives the money to him
- If there is no winner, the money is just a donation to the fondation ;-)
Are there reasons not to do this? I look forward to read your opinions,
Fantasy :-)
PS: Maybe this can be seen similar to the classical musicians who worked under
the patronage system (Mäzenatentum/mecenante), instead of "this starts the
selling out of the Wikipedia idea..."
PPS: Ah, I nearly forgot: why 3x100 Euro?
Wikipedia is a multilingual project. South Tyrol has officially 3 languages.
de/it/ladin. There is no ladin Wikipedia, therefore only de/it. But adding en
would increase visibility and cross-checking.
More details about the contest will follow, if I can go on with it...
We are writing the Wikipedia community per Angela's request. We have started the Museum of Industrial Design, a not for profit organization chartered by the state of New York (USA). Part of our mission concerns the history of industrial design. We think the format (and software) of Wikipedia would be very helpful in the collection and dissemination of this information on an international basis. This may fit in with Wikipedia's mission. We would like to 'borrow' Wikipedia's facility, or coordinate with Wikipedia in some way, to achieve our goal. Please let us know if this might be possible.
Puddl Duk wrote:
>I 'm suprised at the tone of your reply, Anthere. Longtime editors like
>Michael, who've invested hundreds, if not thousands of hours in the project
>don't deserve to be snapped at when they politely express concerns over a
>lack of openess.
>
>
Just to note, I don't feel that Anthere was snapping at me in her
response. I did try to be as polite as possible, recognizing that it's a
sensitive subject, so that she and others hopefully wouldn't think I was
snapping at them.
--Michael Snow
Dear Board,
dear community;
I hereby resign in my official position as Chief Research Officer. We
have reached a point where a fruitful collaboration is no longer
possible due to personal differences and a fundamental disagreement
about the nature and scope of the role.
On the level of substantial disagreements:
I see MediaWiki and the software it will spawn as an analog to the Linux
kernel for the free content movement. As is the case with the kernel, I
would like to see many outside companies and institutions participating
in its development. I saw it as part of my role as CRO to bring these
people together and to coordinate their activities. Members of the Board
feel that this role must be limited to waiting for others to establish
agreements first (or at least, that it should be limited in that way if
_I_ hold it).
This makes it impossible to respond to the question "What can we do to
help?" in any other way but by saying "Talk to this other person", which
puts me in a dependency situation which I find unworkable. Furthermore,
being frequently invited to conferences and generally a social person,
it strikes me as an unnatural separation of responsibilities. I believe
that stagnation and bad decisions in large organizations are often the
result of distinctions like the one which is made a condition of my
continued work as CRO.
I have now sent a list of about 30 contacts to the Board. These were
just the ones I could immediately find: companies, institutions and
individuals who would like to work with us. I would have liked to push
these cooperations forward. Not being allowed to do so is like being
hired as a typist but having one hand tied behind your back.
Essentially, I feel that officers should be allowed to operate within
the scope of an agreed upon strategy in their field of expertise, rather
than having to deal with communication bottlenecks. My field of
expertise was "Research & Outside Development", and not being allowed to
actually be a "first point of contact" and "guide and motivate outside
developers", as the position was defined, alters this role in a way
which I consider unwise and unnecessary.
Truthfully, the limitation of the role in this way would probably not be
necessary if it wasn't for a breakdown of trust between me and
individual members of the Board. So, I hope that someone else will
eventually be able to continue where I left off.
Why did this breakdown happen? Due to conflicts of personality and
goals, and in my belief, due to the fact that I *do* operate openly,
document what I do, and enter discussions -- and when I enter
discussions, refuse to just accept that someone else is correct based on
their position in the food chain or the volume of their voice. It is
easy to avoid controversy by operating in the dark, forming secret
clubs, deceiving people about your intentions, and sucking up to the
ones above you. I have never done so and do not intend to start.
On the level of personal disagreements:
I see the ideal Board/Officer relationship as one which is just as
oriented towards consensus as the remaining wiki process, where the
hierarchy doesn't generally come into play. This appears to be changing,
at least from my point of view. I am not accustomed to taking orders. I
question them, and for volunteer work, I want to have a substantial
influence on the nature of that work, rather than having this being
entirely defined by others.
I will not deny that there is also the personality conflict between me
and Anthere which has led to many public disagreements between us over
the last few years. Without assigning blame, I will just say that it
makes it very difficult for us to work together without constant fights.
Taking this position was a last effort to try to overcome this conflict.
It has failed.
As for me and Jimmy, I feel that the project can only tolerate one
person with an ego the size of a planet, and he was there first. ;-)
The truth is that Jimmy has put his life into this project, and the main
thing he expects in return is recognition and the continued leading
influence over its direction. I know that he has often perceived me as a
major threat to this goal, as someone who might try to undermine or
replace him, and this, too, has made cooperation sometimes difficult.
Recognizing all this, it is clear to me that the best solution is for me
to leave and live a life outside wiki.
On my personal future:
I will drastically limit my contributions to Wikimedia on all levels. I
will no longer be associated with the Research Network. I will stop
maintaining my Commons File Upload Service bot. I will no longer
moderate any mailing lists. I will no longer read wikipedia-l,
foundation-l, wikien-l, and most other mailing lists, with
the exception of wikitech-l. I will not be seen much on IRC. The best
way to reach me will be by e-mail to moeller (@) scireview (.) de.
I hope the Research Network will continue to exist, although I am sure
that its logo will be quietly disposed of now that I'm no longer there
to watch over it :-). As a person handling "pure" research, I think
James Forrester would be an excellent choice, due to his solid technical
understanding, good people skills and creative thinking. But I think the
Board should clearly define the position before a new officer is
appointed to it.
I will continue to work on Wikidata and Ultimate Wiktionary to the point
that we can release it to the world, and that people can improve it,
expand it and build new applications with it. I have not yet decided
whether I will have a significant future involvement with Wikinews.
Beyond that, we will see. I am thinking about ideas to financially
support free content creation. And then there's my belief in global
direct democracy enabled by quality information. Both of these are
projects which never have had much of a future within Wikimedia, so I
will pursue them on my own.
I wish Wikimedia no harm. It will grow beyound our imagination. But when
I feel that I can no longer realize my ambitions within an environment,
I move on. My small role in the history of Wikimedia is largely over.
All best,
Erik
In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:03:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes:
However, your assertion that we are doing a great job for all people on
this planet is very debatable. We have little or no content for many
languages and I would think it a fallacy to reject paying for content in
languages like Bambara or Ossetian out of hand just because we can get
content in languages like English, Dutch or Plattdüütsch. The defenition
of Wikipedia is: *"Wikipedia* is a project to build free encyclopedias
in all languages of the world based on a neutral point of view."
Which is why I have been active in my capacity as grants coordinator to
speak to the relevant parties (Guaka, for instance) to figure out ways to promote
articles in those languages. In fact, Gerard, much of the Africa scholarship
project idea was mine. I would not compare fostering languages with Bambara
to helping individuals in affluent countries promote their personal websites.
On
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia it does not say that we will
always be a volunteer organisation. If anything, we are slowly getting
more professionals in to make sure that what we do will grow and
prosper.
Yes, we need professionals, in organizational capacities. We do not need
professionals to write articles. In fact, our strength is that we do not rely on
professionals to do that.
The discussion on paying for content has been going on for
quite some time. Many people are really happy that there is some
movement in getting content in languages like Bambara or Ossetian. In my
opinion, it makes more sense to spend money on Bambara than on
Plattdüütsch. Research on languages like Bambara are comparatively so
underfunded.
See my comments above. This is very different from paying for content by
corporations or large groups for promotional purposes. My track record proves
that I support one, if not the other.
Danny
In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:44:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jwales(a)wikia.com writes:
Thanks Jimmy,
As I clarified in a later email, my problem is not in small Wikipedias like
Bambara, where seed money can be necessary to get the project off the ground.
In fact, I was one of the original people to propose this. Rather, my concern
is with well established with Wikipedias, like English, German, French,
Italian, or Japanese, where the money is being used to promote personal or
corporate interests.
Danny