Hoi, As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter. What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from thinking. The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It is however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and because of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non professional communities because there are errors in their work. Obviously self reflection is lacking.
Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I know.
When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people to come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again, we are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real world. In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do not represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board that reflects the international composition of our movement does really well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are seen as law.
Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to inform, to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our general practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face a world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those who are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I am happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different outcome in the Netherlands. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight awight@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear friends,
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world, I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding, our tools consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list, a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of chapters.
It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power, and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build consensus. There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something like a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and directly elect the entire Board. Then you may find your questions answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around movement-wide issues.
Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey,
I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you so much :D
A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet
is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as, Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate. And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french
wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale
and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe
this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are
those
values we should stand up for?
But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change
always
is poltical.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees chenner@wikimedia.org +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact,
is
whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or some other kind of power.
Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
*not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary
and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".
We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we
do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute. The list goes
on.
The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
active
community, and a few other things.
Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying
editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never
been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered appropriate.
Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop
asking.
A. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe