Bill/Will mentioned this might be a new organisational chart
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_chart>of the Wikimedia
Foundation. Of course, visuals differ depending on what you are trying to
visualize.
This one
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=6>
for instance would be more along the lines of what you, Dgg, are
mentioning: how the different parties are involved in our projects. This one
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=12>
would be more about how content on the projects is governed, and the
different layers in responsibilities we have. This one
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Educatie_Universiteit_van_Amsterdam_14_november_2017.pdf&page=31>
is more about how content is added to projects (example in this case:
Wikimedia Commons): this is
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=7>
a visualisation on the parties that re-use our content outside of the
projects.
It would probably be impractical (or impossible even?) to put *everything*
in* one* visual without the purpose of the illustration becoming too broad,
and the chart or visual therefore surpassing its purpose (visual support
for a concept).
Vriendelijke groet,
Ciell
Op vr 9 jul. 2021 om 23:16 schreef Dggenwp <dggenwp(a)gmail.com>om>:
The projects are the route by which content is added
to Wikipedia. The
purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have
and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything
except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can
be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising
themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is
capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of
value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be
social clubs.
The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what
matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining
MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount
of essential funding, and the critically important political work of
supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our
influence for this is because people in the world use the content the
volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around
them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće <zblace(a)mi2.hr> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia <ciell.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts
very much enlightening,
and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher
level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
I think all the departments of the WMF-side are
equal, right? For
instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research:
employees are equals, just with a different function in the
organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in
a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Organisational_Chart.JPG> for
example.
Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent
equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
BTW.
.svg file export would be best
for the posibility of translation
within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
Best, Z.
Vriendelijke groet,
Ciell
Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi <
billtakatoshi(a)gmail.com>gt;:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org
chart will look
like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new
email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from
there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems
sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since
improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have
since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't
allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous
submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look
like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I
am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org