Dear Nate,
You say, "By contrast, the bulk of mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the world at large centrally by the international office (i.e. the Wikimedia projects)."
Just think about this statement for a moment. It is not true. The bulk of mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the world at large by volunteers distributed all over the world, some of whom organise themselves into local affiliates.
How do we know this? We know this because Wikipedia became a top-10 website serving the world in 2007, at a time when the WMF had less than a dozen staff and annual expenses of $2 million.
I'm not advocating a return to those times, but I think it makes clear where the value came from.
Best,
Andreas
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nicole,
> Thanks for sharing this - very interesting reading so far. I'm hoping you can elaborate on WMDE's thinking around selecting INGOs for evaluation. Your criteria is very straightforward - INGOs with a confederation of independent organizations, connected by a global mission.
> But each of your selected INGOs is composed of individual organizations that deliver the products and services that advance the global mission within their geographic area, with an "international office" that fulfills a coordination and governance role. By contrast, the bulk of mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the world at large centrally by the international office (i.e. the Wikimedia projects). Did WMDE consider how comparable these INGOs are to the Wikimedia movement in this sense? I don't see a section of your paper that compares the service/product delivery structure of these INGOs, so perhaps this distinction did not come up during your review? Or is the thinking that decentralization of project hosting and support is on the table, and the report can inform that consideration?
> Thanks for any insight you can share,
> Nate