True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only successful Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a success one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world loves, it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia that is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the other entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.
The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this host - chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact that all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant measurable impact on the distribution of knowledge.
So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is only one way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that part of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an
absurdity.
The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the
builders
of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
- I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap
to
new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being provided by the WMF.
- Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully
we
could publicly shame them into handing it over.
George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as
I
can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
editor.
When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF, that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
valley
entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should
be
the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care.
But
this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role
completely
separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just
sack
them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people
who
actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the
course
for its development.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional representative body that had the community's trust and
respect,
that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us
and
the WMF.
Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But
without
that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take
whatever
from the WMF - good and bad.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic < dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote:
To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things
that
will
be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
- the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the
Foundation
- not
to the movement.
Hi Denny,
Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different
view.
They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
"... I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization, speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the
organization
accountable. " [1]
Sarah
[1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 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