I was reading Sherry Arnstein's 1969 paper "A Ladder of Citizen
Participation" (JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224)
available at
http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.h…
or at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 and found it remarkably
relevant to the issue of the engagement beween the volunteer community and
the formal structures of the WMF (Board and executive).
The analysis proposes eight stages or rungs to the ladder:
1. Manipulation
2. Therapy
3. Informing
4. Consultation
5. Placation
6. Partnership
7. Delegated Power
8. Citizen Control
They are grouped as 1-2: Non-participation; 3-5: Tokenism; 6-8: Citizen
Power (see
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ladder_of_citizen_participation,_Sh…
)
Reading "volunteer" for "citizen" throughout, I thought it instructive to
map some of the WMF activities onto the scale, with quotes from the
analysis.
1. Manipulation "In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on
rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose
of "educating" them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine
citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the
distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by
powerholders."
2. Therapy "under a masquerade of involving citizens in planning, the
experts subject the citizens to clinical group therapy."
3. Informing. "the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information -
from officials to citizens - with no channel provided for feedback and no
power for negotiation"
4. Consultation. "People are primarily perceived as statistical
abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings,
take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in
all this activity is that they have 'participated in participation.' And
what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the
required motions"
5. Placation. "An example of placation strategy is to place a few
hand-picked 'worthy' poor on boards [...] If they are not accountable to a
constituency in the community and if the traditional power elite hold the
majority of seats, the have-nots can be easily outvoted and outfoxed."
6. Partnership. "At this rung of the ladder, power is in fact redistributed
through negotiation between citizens and powerholders."
Can there be aby doubt that the majority of WMF group meetings world-wide
falls under the heading of 1 and 2? Or that the communications strategy
and product development strategy of the WMF falls under 3? Or that 4 is a
desciption of the WMF approach to community consultation? Or that 5 is an
uncannily exact description of the way the community nominates (under the
guise of "electing") a minority of board members who may be removed if they
ask impertinant questions? Or that there is precisely zero substantiative
activitity that has risen to level 6?
It is clear that on this analysis the WMF/Community engagement is still at
best "Tokenism" -- discussion is invited.
"Rogol"
I am interested to learn if WMF management or the board has discussed
taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit Wikipedia
and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits (in en-WP at
least) per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their websites,
where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never found
disclosure by any of those companies in en-WP. I have looked and found no
public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other than
Wiki-PR.
Some en-Wiki editors recently identified a long-term paid editor and
brought the matter to ANI: thread is here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noti…>.
This brought this whole thing to mind, and is something I have been wanting
to ask about.
Three questions:
Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes been?
Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such companies?
If not, would you all please consider that?
Thanks.
Christophe, I agree with your statements:
> That resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more
> efficiently. It doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
Would a requirement to publish policy changes at least, say, a month
before they go into effect along with a complete rationale allow
nearly the same efficiency while immunizing the staff against
hypothetical National Security Letters which would otherwise require
them to violate existing policies?
While I am asking you, would you please determine the Board's level of
interest in moving general investments into e.g. Vanguard's endowment
fund and/or other endowment grade mutual fund(s), please? How about an
independent study of supply side and trickle down bias in the top-20
Wikipedias' economics articles? Thank you for your kind service.
Best regards,
Jim Salsman
Hi all,
As tradition describes we organise also this year the writing weeks on the
Dutch Wikipedia We invite everyone, starting today in the coming two weeks,
to write about the Kingdom of Norway (including Svalbard, Jan Mayen, Bouvet
Island, Peter I Island, and Queen Maud Land).
More information can be found on:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Schrijfweek/Noorwegen
We would invite any other community to start a local writing week too!
I wish you all pleasant days to come!
Greetings,
Romaine
Hi everyone,
As I mentioned last week, we plan to do more regular updates on the
movement strategy process going forward. Last week's update was very long,
out of necessity, so we hope sending updates more regularly will allow us
to use a shorter format. While these will often come from me, I expect
you’ll see other folks take turns sending them as the circle of
participation widens.
*Highlights from this past week:*
- We are in the final stages of interviewing potential Lead Strategy
Architects and hope to have a choice and contract by our next update. We
will be able to share more information once a contract is in place.
- We expect the community discussion around the proposed timeline and
strategy process plan to kick off in January.
- Our staff movement strategy study group met yesterday and discussed
the types of groups we see in our movement and the impact that may have on
this process and a future strategy. You can find out more information about
the group on Meta-Wiki.[1]
*Coming next:*
- In the new year I look forward to introducing the Lead Strategy
Architect and providing more information on the plan for January.
You can also track our updates on the Meta-Wiki portal for the movement
strategy.[2]
I won’t make an update next week, as the Wikimedia Foundation offices will
be closed for the holidays between December 25 and January 2. If you are
celebrating the holidays, I hope they are full of good people and good
cheer.
I look forward to seeing you all in 2017!
Katherine.
PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/23…
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Wikimedia_…
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017
--
Katherine Maher
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
Hi everyone,
Last week, at our December meeting, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees made some decisions regarding the two Board terms expiring at the
end of this year. Alice Wiegand sought and received reappointment for a
term which will end at Wikimania 2018. Guy Kawasaki decided not to seek
reappointment, and will complete his term at the end of December.
Alice joined the Board in 2012 when she was selected to serve in one of the
two affiliate-selected board seats. She was subsequently appointed to fill
one of the four appointed expert seats, and will be completing her first
full term in that role this month. Alice lives in Germany, and has been
involved with German Wikipedia since 2004 and Wikimedia Deutschland since
2008. Her unique background brings an important perspective on matters
related to the Wikimedia communities, strategy development, organizational
structuring, and executive accounting and assessment. Given her skills,
experience in the movement, and working knowledge of recent Board history,
we felt it was important to retain her presence for an additional term.
The Board appreciates Guy’s commitment to Wikimedia and the input he
provided while serving on the Board. Guy joined the Board in 2015 when he
was selected to fill one of the four appointed expert seats. A prominent
figure in Silicon Valley, Guy has brought a unique perspective to the
challenges and opportunities the Board has considered during his term. Even
though we only worked together for a short time, I enjoyed his fresh point
of view that forced us to step out of our comfort zone, and reconsider
things we've done for years. In a time of evolution, the value from those
questions was really high.
Alice's new appointment will last 1.5 years as opposed to 2 years[1]. We
have asked Alice to serve a term which ends at Wikimania 2018 (instead of
in December 2018) to help consolidate Board transitions to the annual
meeting at Wikimania, rather than spread throughout the year. Our hope is
this shift will support a more effective onboarding process for new members.
We will provide more information in January on our plans for filling the
vacancy now left by Guy's departure, as well as the other vacancies on the
Board. Until then, I invite you to join me in congratulating Alice on her
reappointment, and thanking Guy for his service to Wikimedia.
Congratulations, Alice, and thank you, Guy!
As 2016 comes to an end, please allow me to take a moment and thank all of
you, on behalf of the Board, for your support, efforts, and contributions
this past year. We overcame many hurdles together and achieved many
collaborative accomplishments. I am confident that we will make 2017 an
amazing year. I am looking forward to continuing to work with all of you as
we come together in service of the movement in new ways. There is still
much to achieve and hurdles to overcome, but, together, we have what it
takes.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
Christophe Henner, Chair
PS. An on-wiki version of this message is available for translation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
Board_noticeboard/December_2016_-_Update_regarding_expiring_Board_terms
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Term_
Limit_Proposal_for_Bylaws
Christophe HENNER
Chair of the board of trustees
chenner(a)wikimedia.org
+33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
The statement by the Board that "The Board is committed to making our
communities safer" is very welcome. Perhaps the Board will turn its
attention to the process for developing the *Code of conduct for Wikimedia
technical spaces* which has been under discussion in draft form at [
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Draft] since *July 2015* and
is still not agreed. The Board was asked to involve itself in this
discussion in August 2015 [
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_not…]
but the only response was from one member whose view then was "It makes me
feel sad to see that Board involvement is asked for. This is exactly the
place where I thing the affected community should deliberate, find a
consensus, agree on wording and implement such a policy. A code of conduct
only works if it is backed up by those who have to follow it. A
top-down-manner is not the best idea to create this ownership feeling." [
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft&diff…].
I am glad to see that the Board's position is now very different.
It is worth the Board's while considering why this initiative has stalled.
In my view, apart from the Board's regrettable lack of interest in it at
the time, this process has been over-managed and overwhelmed by a small
group of developers almost all of whom are members of the WMF staff and who
have chosen to run this process as as if it were a WMF project rather than
a community initiative, and who chose to take various parts of the
discussion to other venues without notification or the possibility of
effective community-wide involvement.
One significant obstacle to an effective and timely completion of this
process has been the ineffective handling of a contract with two
consultants to advise on the form that the process should take (see the
extended discussions at [
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft/Archive_2] at "Done,
down or defunct?" and [
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft] at "Advice
provided by consultants Valerie Aurora and Ashe Dryden"). It appears that
the consultants were paid out of WMF (ie donors') funds but did not engage
widely with the community, and their report, if any, has never been made
public. (Indeed, I have no reason to believe that a formal report was ever
presented -- certainly none has ever been published.) As a completely
independent question, the Board may wish to assure thmselves that this
consultancy was properly tendered and procured; that it was effectively
managed; and that the contracted-for outputs were satisfactorily
delivered. This less-than-effective process delayed rather than
accelerated the completion of the Code.
A second and major obstacle, which in my view has delayed the drafting
process for over a year, is an intransigent attitude on the part of WMF
Legal towards a requirement that persons operating this Code to handle
situations involving members of the WMF staff should be under an absolute
obligation to notify the WMF of the details of any complait irrespective of
the wishes of the other parties for privacy, the legal requirements for
confidentiality applicable in the relevant jurisdictions and the personal
or professional ethical positions of the people handling these potentially
very sensitive incidents. Astonishingly, a Legal Counsel for the WMF has
recently issued a determination [
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft&diff…]
which appears to forbid the community at large to discuss the issue
further. This intransigence is quite incomprehensible and is certainly
quite destructive of the community engagement that is required to deliver
this Code initially or to make it a workable document. It seems very
likely that the obllgation being imposed is unworkable in itself, that the
community will not endorse any Code that formally creates two classes of
participant with two distinct levels of protection and treatment, and that
formally instituting a two-tier community is a matter that the Board might
wish to consider as a specific, important and urgent question of policy.
It is a matter of considerable surprise that with this Code not yet in
place, with no clear timeline for delivery ever proposed, the Board have
been informed [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?curid=24446]
that this Code is due to be completed in a specific timeframe and that
there will be a budget of around $25K per annum required to train the
Committee who will oversee it. Is the Board quite confident that the Code
will be completed at that (or indeed any) time, and more importantly, that
when put to the community, it will command their acceptance?
Since the Board quite rightly regard this area as a matter of importance,
perhaps they will review the status of this project, take the steps
necessary to bring to to an effective conclusion acceptable to the
Community as a whole, ensure that approriate lessons are learnt from the
unsatisfactory history -- and engage the Commuity fully in their
deliberations and in the communication of their conclusions.
"Rogol"
Hi everyone,
As most of you know, we run our English-language online fundraiser on
Wikipedia every year in December. It’s our biggest fundraiser of the year.
During this time we raise the bulk of funds to support our operating budget
to support the projects, fund community efforts around the world, and run
the Wikimedia Foundation.
This year, we are happy to report we’ve reached our goal of US$25 million
in record time. This is a testament to the importance of Wikimedia and how
much support we have from people all over the world.
Given this momentum, we believe that it would be wise and worthwhile to
continue to fundraise more in the month of December, for the following
reasons:
1. While we have reached our goal for the December campaign, we have not
yet reached our fundraising goal for Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - July
2017).
Continuing the English fundraiser gives us security and flexibility through
the end of the fiscal year. It allows us to have a less aggressive banner
schedule in coming months, which gives us time for more research and better
localization.
2. We have clear programmatic uses for additional funds.
We have some important projects that could use additional funds and are
ready to proceed. We plan to direct additional funds to the following work:
1.
The buildout of an additional caching center, to improve site
performance for users across Asia and Oceania [1].
2.
Investment in additional support for structured data on Wikimedia
Commons and improved integration with the Wikidata roadmap [2].
3.
Support for community health initiatives, including additional support
for the Community Engagement team [3].
4.
Support for an inclusive and truly global movement strategy process [4].
5.
Growing the endowment in order to secure our future [5].
You can find more information about each of these areas of work below.
We have chosen these projects because they directly support our mission and
respond to the needs of Wikimedia communities and users. We also believe
these investments are investments in our future: support for a diverse
global community, increased resourcing for sister projects, a healthier
community culture, a shared direction for the future of the movement, and
security for our mission in perpetuity.
Here is what we will do: We intend to continue with the banners for a few
more days. We would then take them down over the Christmas holiday, before
making an end-of-year push in the final couple days of the year. (Many
people choose to give at the very end of the year, and they are expecting
to hear from us as usual -- so it is an opportunity to give people who plan
to give the easiest means to participate).
We’ve been following the conversations on this list about the fundraiser
and the target. On Wednesday, we sent this recommendation to our Board of
Trustees, who were broadly supportive of this course of action. Today, we
are sending it to you. We believe we can make good use of the funds in the
coming year, without additional unsustainable commitments into coming
fiscal years. It is fiscally responsible and programmatically sound. The
additional work strengthens our movement, and the additional funds make
these efforts possible.
We welcome your questions and feedback.
Best regards,
Lisa Seitz Gruwell and Jaime Villagomez
More information about the projects:
[1] An additional caching center to improve performance in Asia and Oceania
Our current caching centers in have provided significant value to users,
and the Wikimedia Foundation invested further in them in 2014-15. We
believe that further expanding these efforts and their reach into other
parts of the world would further help us provide the best user experience
to our global audience. With that in mind, we are considering a number of
different locations for an additional caching center to enhance our
performance for Wikimedia communities in Asia and Oceania. Most internet
organizations compete to reach users by establishing local points of
presence, and as a result the performance expectations of users in Asia are
getting higher. Establishing this new caching center will help us meet
those expectations for site performance.
[2] Structured data on Commons*
The Structured Data project
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data> is an effort
to store information for media files in a structured way on Wikimedia
Commons, so they are easier to view, translate, search, edit, curate and
use. This would be done on Commons with the same technology as the one
developed for Wikidata. Wikimedia Commons holds a lot of data about the
files it hosts. Structuring this data more and making it machine-readable
would have many benefits to making our files more accessible in multiple
languages, improving the process for uploading media, increasing the
usability of the search function, and decreasing ambiguity for people
interested in re-use of media on Commons. A demo system is currently
available: https://structured-commons.wmflabs.org
[3] Responding to harassment and toxic behaviour*
On November 13th, the Board issued a letter
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-December/085668.html>
to the Wikimedia community in support of efforts to improve overall
community culture and health. The letter confirmed the value of allocating
resources to this work. The WMF Support and Safety team detailed some of
the possible approaches in a letter by Patrick Earley. Funding from this
year’s fundraiser would be directed at supporting these approaches,
including technical tools for better blocking and detection.
[4] Movement strategy process
Katherine recently shared the exciting news that the Board has approved a
US$2.5million spending resolution to support the development of a Wikimedia
movement strategy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017>. Coming
to consensus on a strategic direction will help us know what destination we
are headed, which path we will take, and how we will ensure our work is
well supported.
[5] The Wikimedia Endowment
The Wikimedia Endowment <https://15.wikipedia.org/endowment.html>, launched
earlier this year during the Wikipedia 15 celebration, serves as a
perpetual source of support for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
Since then, we have already received some major gifts and are recruiting a
talented and committed board for the endowment. In June, we seeded the
endowment in part with contributions from last year's campaign. Further
investment in the endowment is an investment in building a sustainable
future for Wikimedia projects.
*Note: We are also seeking foundation grants for these projects –
Structured Data on Commons and responding to harassing and toxic behavior –
which may cover all or a portion of their costs this fiscal year.
Hello, everyone. :)
The winter holiday season is upon us, and the Foundation office will be
closed from 24 December to 2 January, returning 3 January. We will, of
course, be maintaining essential services, but we're encouraging staff to
take this time to rest and prepare for the work of the upcoming quarter and
calendar year. Emails sent to staff may be read but (unless urgent)
probably won't be responded to until we return.
Best wishes to all!
Best,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
Interim Chief of Community Engagement
Director, Support, Safety and Programs
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.