David Gerard wrote:
On 21 November 2010 21:14, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I wouldn't say that disagreements are due to unclear roles. I would say most disagreements come from the Wikimedia Foundation not adhering to its principles, values, and mission as closely as some feel it should. This includes a commitment to transparency and accountability.
What are some examples of particular current problems that you feel this position would fix?
I'm not sure I agree that this position is designed to fix any current problems. The task of fixing the problems lies with those currently in power at the Wikimedia Foundation. However, in order to address problems, problems must be clearly defined. That can be the role of an ombudsman. Like most ombudsman positions, the task inside the Wikimedia Foundation would be to point out the problems and encourage discussion of them (cf. National Public Radio Ombudsman's blog).
I don't think there would be any lack of issues that the Ombudsman could address, but in general I would say that the focus would be on issues that relate to violations of or perceived violations of the Wikimedia Foundation's principles. For example, if the Wikimedia Foundation is engaging in a large amount of non-public but relevant discussion that members of the community feel is inappropriate, the Ombudsman could investigate and discuss the issue. Similarly, if the Ombudsman feels that the Wikimedia Foundation is allocating resources in a manner inconsistent with its mission and purpose, that could be up for discussion as well.
Why is this particular proposed position the tool to fix them?
Sometimes it's best to look at how other organizations have addressed an issue and take lessons away from them. There isn't a need to always reinvent the wheel, so to speak. It seems like an accepted practice among reputable organizations to implement an ombudsman position. As noted in the opening post, there are already some mechanisms in place to ensure that the Wikimedia Foundation is adhering to its principles (a Board of Trustees, e.g.), however there are severe limitations to those mechanisms currently. If there is an issue with a lack of open and public communication, for example, any non-physical presence will not be able to measure or observe this effectively, I think.
Is there a reason you think an ombudsman position would not work at Wikimedia?
How do you envision this tool working in your example problems?
One proposed idea is to have a "Wikimedia fellow" fill the position. There are other solutions for implementing this idea, but there are issues of cart and horse order, I think.
The original e-mail was asking if there had been past discussion about this idea or if there any virtue to it. You seem to have not answered either question. :-)
MZMcBride