I agree with SJ. Radical transparency seems to fit perfectly with the radical collaboration model used by Wikipedia. If we can give anonymous users the power to vandalise a page, which can then be seen by everyone, including the media, then I don't see why we can't let everyone see our decision-making processes, warts and all.
I also think that the term 'radical transparency' is a bit loaded: the word 'radical' seems designed to scare people in this context. Why not just use the word 'transparency'?! It is surely lesser forms of transparency that should have a qualifying term - e.g. 'semi-transparency'. It would surely be misleading to refer to such forms of semi-transparency simply with the term 'transparency'.
But I have a much, much deeper concern about Florence's post. Why are we merely being presented with the decision not to have 'radical transparency'? I appreciate that the board must be able to make certain decisions without consultation with the rest of the community, but surely not on such an incredibly fundamental issue as this? I'm new to this community and am wondering what rules are in place to dictate which decisions are made by the board and which by the community as a whole? For example, I assume it is not the case that the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
Derrick Farnell
On Dec 25, 2007 11:39 PM, SJ Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
A fairly long reply to Florence and Sebastian.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Florence Devouard wrote:
Being leaving you, I would like to share with you part of an article (which you may find in a rather famous encyclopedia). I invite all of you to read it carefully.
Thank you for sharing.
Some organizations and networks, for example, Wikipedia, the GNU/Linux community and Indymedia, insist that not only the ordinary information of interest to the community is made freely available, but that all (or nearly all) meta-levels of organizing and decision-making are themselves also published. This is known as radical transparency.
I think the last paragraph is interesting. Indeed, what some of you are asking is radical transparency at the organization level. And radical transparency is not really suitable for us
I regret that you feel this way. Are you deeply resolved that this is right? You who always stood up for the rights of the unwanted on the projects? The power of such transparency is being greatly undervalued -- indeed, even in this email on transparency, you do not once mention the value of transparency explicitly. When did we start doubting this basic truth?
I have always had the utmost faith in you as a board member, and then as Chair, precisely because you have such a strong sense of openness and propriety. So it disturbs me to read such muted overtones in this letter of yours.
in most part because we are in the eye-storm of the media interest and that any scandal (or non-scandal actually) is likely to raise the interest of a journalist, and likely to spread at light-speed
Why are we as a project so sensitive? Why should we care? Wikipedia is and will remain one of the most extraordinary collaborations in human history. The greatest exercise in knowledge organization OF ALL TIME.
The one great strength of the project is that there has been only one; there is nothing like it anywhere in the world, in any field. The ramblings of a journalist out for a juicy story are hardly relevant on a timescale of generations. Indeed, being remembered for radical transparency would do more to cement Wikipedia's reputation than any short-term gain in public approval. Why are we seeking 'public' approval?
Why should we care ? Collectively, we are likely to mostly care because of our economical system. We essentially rely on the goodwill of donators, and donators are heavily sensitive to public displays of disagreements, fights, errors, misestimates, major screw-ups.
Well, that's an interesting position. So we seek public approval for short-term financial gain. I also think it is entirely wrong. I believe that the most active and valuable contributors -- those few editors who put in thousands of hours of work a year on the site, whose talents we as a project could not possible find by posting job descriptions and trying to hire 'editors', who are contributing the most to our little Wiki-economy -- that those contributors will all appreciate this sort of transparency. Tremendously; appreciate with the depth of spirit that leads one to renew a commitment to devote one's spare waking hours to a great endeavour.
We should absolutely preserve a clean reputation; but that starts with our most prolific and active donors : the people who pay close enough attention to know the difference between a pr pitch and the truth : the people who love and respect the history of often heated debate which gave rise to Wikipedia as we know it.
And why should we want to hide fights, errors, and disagreements from the world, those who are not yet contributors? This is the nature of life; of collaboration; of any project. I think being open about conflict or tricky issues is often the best way to draw new people in -- the best way to encourage newfound trust. contribution to Wikipedia, like the foundation of any economic system, is based on widespread trust.
And again, even from a publicity standpoint; shows and programs about the instability of real life are today as popular as any on television. It is a myth that people prefer or respect simple scripted story lines and a facade of perfection to the turbulence of reality.
On the topic of having too little time and 'human resources' to deal swiftly with certain things (like the treasurer search):
For example, we are looking for a treasurer. Can we reasonably appoint someone most of us have never met ? Likely not, but the next time we
I know there was a community calls for interested treasurers. But was there a suggestion of having a public place to discuss these; or even to see who has applied? What is the rationale there? With more public discussion, many of us would have become more invested in the issue, and would likely have had good suggestions to make.
Perhaps I am not the only one reading this list who can think of potentially suitable person they have not contacted... Of course personal resumes and other information could be submitted privately. But I wonder if any of the truly eligible candidates are people who would not even want their interest in the position to be published and discussed openly.
However, in the recent weeks, my belief is that, we have seen
<
- a tendency to shut down requests and criticism, whether on this list
or even on private lists, in an attempt to canalize the nature of information being made available
- a tendency to craft "authorized" messaging, accompanied with severe
criticism against trusted members deviating from this authorized
messages
What does this mean, for such a large [set of] project[s]? What is an example of an authorized message?
Not all ideas in these three tendencies are wrong. Standardization may be a good idea in some circonstances and facilitate daily operations. Privacy to discuss sensitive matters is obviously a good idea. And speaking with a unique voice rather than a cloud of voices is strengthening.
I'm not sure the last sentence is true. When there *is* a shared voice and vision, that is strengthening. When this is forced, it is not. Speaking with many different [genuine!] voices can also be strengthening.
But I would advise going too far on that path. It is not healthy generally, it is frustrating many good contributors. In an environmental situation which is very unstable with competitors, a rather decentralized, flexible system, with plenty of opportunities to jump in the system, is usually considered the best solution.
I agree it is frustrating many contributors. I don't think competition has much to do with it...
Sebastian writes:
This kind of transparency is detrimental to any organisation of
< significant size...
If, for example, a business has a tentative interest in a deal with the Wikimedia Foundation to publish Wikipedia content and use the trademark, those following negotiations will necessarily be confidential as will be the terms of the agreement. They have to be because incorporating Wikipedia content in a new, innovative way can be a significant competitive advantage - just think of the recent announcement by Spiegel in Germany to create a new knowledge portal combining a variety of sources with Wikipedia articles.
I agree with all of the changes you suggest later in your email, Sebastian, but I disagree with your comments above... your example of the Spiegel and other similar efforts are hardly ones that need to be kept largely confidential -- if 10% of such discussions are kept private, that should both be quite transparent and help avoid divulging sensitive private/personal/financial data.
The competitive advantage argument falls flat; I suppose we could also encourage innovation in MediaWiki by engaging in business deals with people who want to develop competitive advantage by adding non-free extensions -- after all, it is one of the most widely used pieces of software in the world. There are good reasons, tied directly to goals of sharing information with the widest possible audience, that we don't do that. And the creators of the tools in question chose their licenses carefully to preempt such arguments shutting down the free sharing of future innovations.
Wishing you and everyone a happy holiday season, and a head start on a productive and joyful 2008,
SJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l