haha, I like that expression ... need to remember the ear on the ground:)
the big problem with a trust is imo, that it is not possible for an ordinary person to get involved in a decisive role. a chapter takes anybody as member and anybody can be elected to its board.
rupert On Nov 23, 2011 7:21 AM, "Bishakha Datta" bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the reply, Rupert, and for pushing me to think harder. I like that!
Without repeating myself and building on your questions, here's what I'll say:
I agree that chapters are an important way to take the wikimedia movement forward across the globe. No issues with that. I'm still not convinced that *any entity* should see itself at the centre of the movement either globally or in a country - either because it has members, or because it has funding, or because it is an entity. For any reason. Why is it important for an entity in a volunteer movement to be at the centre at all?
If there is anyone or anything that I see at the centre of the wikimedia movement, it is individual volunteers - who work on the projects, edit day in and day out, do other things etc. When entities and formal organizations start up in a country, individual volunteers who are not affiliated to any of these start seeing themselves as 'lower order volunteers' in some way; to me, this is tremendously sad. I've heard editors in India say, "I'm just a volunteer" (to describe themselves, since they are neither office bearers in the chapter, nor work in the program trust). When I hear that, I feel we're doing something wrong - the presence of entities in a country should make individual volunteers and editors feel supported and part of this universe, not devalued or disconnected.
In response to your questions about not doing it differently in India, I think there's good reason for us to experiment in different ways in different geographies - wasn't wikipedia itself a grand experiment to begin with? But yes, experiment in a way that does not exclude the communities that have organically grown in these places. If we really want to sustain the projects at a time when the editor base is declining, I do think some experimentation may be in order. Agree that things don't work out should be dropped, but maybe new ways of doing things can also provide new answers.
And yes, a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to work, given how culturally diverse the world is. So yes, boots on the ground, but also ear to the ground. :)
Cheers Bishakha
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
hi bishaka,
many thanks for your mail! i like a lot your attitude a lot to challenge constantly existing ways of thinking and doing :)
just let us look on others. our exemplary organizations are not doing anything different than in all other countries:
- http://www.indianredcross.org/sb.htm
- http://www.msfindia.in/
- national indian football leage
- http://www.wwfindia.org/
coming to the other point you made about "living up to expectations". i
am
pretty sure you know that the chapters are "per definition" at the center stage, like wmf is. and you know of the careful ant patient proceeding which led, in a second try, to a successful UK chapter. and the
thoughtful
and friendly and listening proceeding to make every organization in the wiki universe live up to the expectations and get better, which now can
be
seen exemplary by planning the future fundraising and fund disemination.
is there a reason why the wikimedia movement should address it
differently
in india? why not be patient? why not be consistent? why not do like the other big ones, surely much more experienced in india than we are?
rupert
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and
want
to
take this conversation forward.
One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness
within
the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as
givens -
these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone
explored
in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated almost as sacrilege.
One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some
sort
of trespasser or gate-crasher).
A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default,
and
without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for
many
countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only
workable
model?)
For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not mistaken.
India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories, atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more
entities,
not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge
to
people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a
second
entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding
sources
do not seem to be scarce.
Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity
in
any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email:
"...this
new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the
potential
to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage anymore."
I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity,
should
feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to
prove
that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start
laying
any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself
too -
via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then,
will
it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't
think
anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that
would
be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see
what
this problem actually is.
Best Bishakha
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l