If I understood well, Americans don't have such bad feelings toward the word "bureaucracy" and its derivatives. In Europe it is different. When I tell to Gerard that he is better bureaucrat than me, he feels offended; although I thought about specific virtues, not defects; and although I've defined myself a number of times as a Wikimedia bureaucrat.
That difference lays probably in 300 years of different developments of societies. Franz Kafka wasn't living in 18th century, but in 20th. Horrors of bureaucracies wasn't so obvious in 18th century because it is hard to say that any kind of sensible bureaucracy existed then. Arbitrariness of feudatories and rulers was much bigger problem. And at least in the case of bureaucracy, Americans had much more luck.
As you could see I am usually use the "American" meaning of the word "bureaucracy" and its derivatives. Complex societies can't exist without more or less good bureaucracies. Unlike many of my friends, I appreciate good formal bureaucracy. This is the minimum and it is much better to deal with formal bureaucracy than with informal relations. As a user of [social] institutions you can count on formal bureaucracy, while it is not possible with informal relations.
However, to be effective, bureaucracy has to be managed. This is particularly true for very complex bureaucracies, and Wikimedia is already a very complex bureaucracy. And it (bureaucracy) is not managed well.
The main problem with not well managed bureaucracies are not well defined responsibilities. In other words, it is not possible to say that one person or one group is responsible for some malfunctioning. It is the product of the right decisions at the lower level of complexity, which creates malfunctioning at the higher level of complexity.
That means that I am not blaming anyone particularly, but that we have increasing number of the problems of that type; which means that all of us have to think how not to make such mistakes.
Last couple of months I am not uploading images to Commons as I would like to do. Not counting that I block all of my upload link for ten or more minutes per one high resolution photo, it is very painful process even for 20k logo.
Today I am working from my netbook. It is not so easy to find the right button and the screen is small. I wanted to upload 20k logo for new Wikipedia edition (in Banjar) [1]. I wanted to find the right copyright tag (logo is trademark of WMF). So, I clicked on "Permissions" link, instead on question mark. When I went back all of the form was blanked.
Note that I did that because I didn't want to be arrogant bureaucrat. People who want that project have already created SVG logo and I didn't want to insist that they have to create PNG derivative; I can do that, it should be easier.
So, I wanted to do that as I treat that as my responsibility. I filled the form once again and I had to spend next ~15 minutes while trying to upload the 20k logo: license is not correct, author is not correct, this is not correct, that is not correct. And I am using Commons from the time when it started to exist.
There is no way that I would be willing to upload any file on Commons because I would like to do it; just if I have to do it.
The logical question is, of course, have I complained about it? This problem exists for a year or so. And I am sure that I am not the only person who complained about it in various ways.
The first step in solving the problem is to ask one of the responsible persons to fix it. So, maybe a year ago, I've asked that person. He told me to fill the bug. No, I am not willing to fill the bug. (Note that I am doing that regularly as a LangCom member.)
There are three types of [technical] bugs in process: (1) mostly, nothing has been done; (2) my bug is redundant, someone is working [or not] on this issue already (in this case for a year or so); (3) if I am lucky and someone responds to the initial bug request, I would have to spend hours in defining, explaining etc.
And I just wanted to upload a photo or logo. It should last for 5-15 minutes, depending on my upload speed. Not hours in explaining what the problem is.
And if I have to spend hours every time when I see a problem, I think that it is much more reasonable to spend hours in talking about the problem in general.
This particular problem has and doesn't have responsible persons or groups. The problem lays somewhere between Commons community and WMF tech staff. And the point is that any of those groups could make our life easier, while I suppose that all of them think that it is not their problem, but the problem for which another group is responsible.
Both of the groups made right decisions at the lower level of complexity. The first one wanted to be sure that there are a lot of explanations, the second has put upload form with more useful features. However, the final product is a nightmare from the point of the basic usability: you can't upload file effectively, which is the main purpose of the upload form (and Commons).
I am sure that there are a lot of similar problems all over Wikimedia projects. Something has to be done generally. And once again, I don't know who should do that. Who should lead the synchronization process between various Wikimedia groups? Or, who should delegate that problem to a particular person or group?
[1] - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lambang_Wikipidia_Bahasa_Banjar.png
An'n 25.09.2010 17:53, hett Milos Rancic schreven:
Today I am working from my netbook. It is not so easy to find the right button and the screen is small. I wanted to upload 20k logo for new Wikipedia edition (in Banjar) [1]. I wanted to find the right copyright tag (logo is trademark of WMF). So, I clicked on "Permissions" link, instead on question mark. When I went back all of the form was blanked.
I guess you are right, that the Wikimedia bureaucracy can be improved although I have no actual ideas how to do it. But I don't think that your example with Commons upload is a good example. This behaviour certainly is a total failure in usability (I never experienced the problem because I use the classic uplaod form). But the problem is not conflicting design goals of developers and Commons admins. It's just some error in the Javascript. The error can be fixed and the upload form should work as expected. If anybody knows where in the code the form blanking happens please report it so it can be fixed.
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 18:28, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
An'n 25.09.2010 17:53, hett Milos Rancic schreven:
Today I am working from my netbook. It is not so easy to find the right button and the screen is small. I wanted to upload 20k logo for new Wikipedia edition (in Banjar) [1]. I wanted to find the right copyright tag (logo is trademark of WMF). So, I clicked on "Permissions" link, instead on question mark. When I went back all of the form was blanked.
I guess you are right, that the Wikimedia bureaucracy can be improved although I have no actual ideas how to do it. But I don't think that your example with Commons upload is a good example. This behaviour certainly is a total failure in usability (I never experienced the problem because I use the classic uplaod form). But the problem is not conflicting design goals of developers and Commons admins. It's just some error in the Javascript. The error can be fixed and the upload form should work as expected. If anybody knows where in the code the form blanking happens please report it so it can be fixed.
There are other issues besides JavaScript. I needed 15 minutes to upload image (after the initial problem) not because JavaScript problem, but because of not various requirements which are not well defined.
An'n 25.09.2010 18:32, hett Milos Rancic schreven:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 18:28, Marcus Buckme@marcusbuck.org wrote:
An'n 25.09.2010 17:53, hett Milos Rancic schreven:
Today I am working from my netbook. It is not so easy to find the right button and the screen is small. I wanted to upload 20k logo for new Wikipedia edition (in Banjar) [1]. I wanted to find the right copyright tag (logo is trademark of WMF). So, I clicked on "Permissions" link, instead on question mark. When I went back all of the form was blanked.
I guess you are right, that the Wikimedia bureaucracy can be improved although I have no actual ideas how to do it. But I don't think that your example with Commons upload is a good example. This behaviour certainly is a total failure in usability (I never experienced the problem because I use the classic uplaod form). But the problem is not conflicting design goals of developers and Commons admins. It's just some error in the Javascript. The error can be fixed and the upload form should work as expected. If anybody knows where in the code the form blanking happens please report it so it can be fixed.
There are other issues besides JavaScript. I needed 15 minutes to upload image (after the initial problem) not because JavaScript problem, but because of not various requirements which are not well defined.
Okay. Could you elaborate on that? What do you think should be changed? Which requirements are not well defined?
So far I don't understand where exactly you see the influence of "bad bureaucracy" playing a role here.
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 18:49, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Okay. Could you elaborate on that? What do you think should be changed? Which requirements are not well defined?
So far I don't understand where exactly you see the influence of "bad bureaucracy" playing a role here.
Around a year ago: * I have usability problem with Commons upload. (1) * I complain about it. * I am redirected to the Bugzilla. * I am not willing to fill the bug *2. * (I think that I mentioned that issue here a year or so ago.)
A couple of months ago: * I have the same usability problem... complain to the different person... answer is: MediaWiki is not finished as Wikipedia isn't.
Today: * I have the same usability problem...
(1) Usability problem at Commons * The first part of the problem is in software (JavaScript). ** The software problem is also link behavior. The similar type of links on that page opens new web page and AJAX feature. (Sign + at the bottom opens category browser.) ** The problem is existence of link to Permissions in software with such problem, too. Without that link, user would be able just to click on the question mark and to clearly see that link would be opened as a regular web page. ** I am not the only person who uses Commons and I am sure that this problem is well known among users. * The second part of the problem are requirements for uploading image. I was not allowed to post the image before I: ** wrote inside of the form that permission is {{pd}} -- although it was not as {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} template was not recognized as a valid template; ** then, after {{pd}} hasn't been recognized as a valid template inside of the second form (the form which you get *sometimes* if you didn't fill the form well and under unknown circumstances), I had to write again {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} and it has been accepted. * In the mean time, I spent the most of the time in testing what works and what doesn't work.
(2) Filling the bug at Bugzilla.
* As a Wikimedia bureaucrat I am filling those bugs regularly, whenever new language edition of some Wikimedia projects is needed. Sometimes projects have been opened quickly, sometimes they haven't been. Sometimes it is important to open the project quickly and I am pushing that when it is needed. But, generally, I am fine with this procedure, as this is not my part of the job. I did my best, it is known what should be done and I have nothing to add there. Besides that, this is a kind of regular task for WMF tech staff. [1]
* However, in the most of other cases I am filling bug requests as an ordinary MediaWiki/Wikimedia user. And this is Kafkian, too: The best chances are not to have solved problem at all. For example, bug 20061 [2] says that if you type [[chapter:nl:]] from Wikipedia in Serbian (it is probably true for all other Wikimedia projects in Serbian), you will go to http://sr.wikimedia.org/nl: -- which is nothing. This bug hasn't been solved for more than year, although the solution should be relatively simple database hack by changing the redirect keyword "chapter" from http://sr.wikimedia.org/ to http://rs.wikimedia.org/.
But, let's say we don't care a lot about that and that we are able to write the full URL for anything related to Wikimedia chapters at Wikipedia in Serbian.
The second option is to spend a lot of time in explaining what is needed and again not to get the result. The third option is to spend much more time and to finally get the result.
After such experience I have to weigh the size of the problem as well as how do I care about it personally. In the case of Commons bug I've realized that it is easier to me to upload images just if I have to and not to pass to the third option and spend a lot of energy in arguing that it is important to resolve that bug.
Note that I am very well introduced in Wikimedia projects and that I know what is the right address for filling a bug request. A random Wikimedian who has similar problem probably doesn't know that bugzilla.wikimedia.org exists at all. And, according to the present situation, it seems that it is better.
Combined together, it is a very fertile material for writing a good satire about our bureaucracy.
I am leading a small IT department in a company with 50+ employees. We are treated as "the room for the rest", which is usual treatment of IT departments in smaller companies. We are administrating servers and workstations, we are programming, we are making Power Point presentations when management really needs it and there is no one around who knows it, we are dealing with electrical and phone installations etc.; it is often the part of our job is to do psychotherapy, too; although we are just admins, programmers and designers.
So, I know how important is to say "no". Because of that I understand why it should be a bit harder to upload a file at Commons and why it should be a bit harder to push some needed bug request.
However, the combination of a couple of small mistakes from both sides creates a very frustrating environment for work.
And to say again in reply to Jim: It is not a kind of bureaucracy in the sense of high-level corruption; it is a kind of bureaucracy with whom any ordinary person faces everyday. It is not evil by nature, it is just not well managed.
And, again, the system is too complex to say that it is a responsibility of a particular person. This is a kind of chained problem: if one person waits for one day and there are 100 persons in the chain, instead of solving issue in a couple of days, we'll have to wait more than three months. With good chances that person 64 will forget for the issue.
[1] BTW, the whole process also leads to the Kafkian bureaucracy from the point of persons interested in project creation. There are three time holes in the process of opening a new project: (1) speed of recognizing new request; (2) speed of recognizing that everything need has been done (localization + sustainable activity); and (3) project creation after the final approval. But, at last, in this case it is possible to recognize what the problems are and to fix them.
While I support the idea that we should have a discussion about how to manage and structure our bureaucratic elements, I think the distinction posited between American and European perspectives is imaginary. As an example, personally I have so far declined to accept "bureaucrat" status largely because of the connotations of the name. This despite the fact that I feel reasonably capable of navigating most bureaucracies (a skill that has far more to do with whether someone can "appreciate" bureaucracy than their nationality).
--Michael Snow
On 9/25/2010 8:53 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
If I understood well, Americans don't have such bad feelings toward the word "bureaucracy" and its derivatives. In Europe it is different. When I tell to Gerard that he is better bureaucrat than me, he feels offended; although I thought about specific virtues, not defects; and although I've defined myself a number of times as a Wikimedia bureaucrat.
That difference lays probably in 300 years of different developments of societies. Franz Kafka wasn't living in 18th century, but in 20th. Horrors of bureaucracies wasn't so obvious in 18th century because it is hard to say that any kind of sensible bureaucracy existed then. Arbitrariness of feudatories and rulers was much bigger problem. And at least in the case of bureaucracy, Americans had much more luck.
As you could see I am usually use the "American" meaning of the word "bureaucracy" and its derivatives. Complex societies can't exist without more or less good bureaucracies. Unlike many of my friends, I appreciate good formal bureaucracy. This is the minimum and it is much better to deal with formal bureaucracy than with informal relations. As a user of [social] institutions you can count on formal bureaucracy, while it is not possible with informal relations.
However, to be effective, bureaucracy has to be managed. This is particularly true for very complex bureaucracies, and Wikimedia is already a very complex bureaucracy. And it (bureaucracy) is not managed well.
The main problem with not well managed bureaucracies are not well defined responsibilities. In other words, it is not possible to say that one person or one group is responsible for some malfunctioning. It is the product of the right decisions at the lower level of complexity, which creates malfunctioning at the higher level of complexity.
That means that I am not blaming anyone particularly, but that we have increasing number of the problems of that type; which means that all of us have to think how not to make such mistakes.
Last couple of months I am not uploading images to Commons as I would like to do. Not counting that I block all of my upload link for ten or more minutes per one high resolution photo, it is very painful process even for 20k logo.
Today I am working from my netbook. It is not so easy to find the right button and the screen is small. I wanted to upload 20k logo for new Wikipedia edition (in Banjar) [1]. I wanted to find the right copyright tag (logo is trademark of WMF). So, I clicked on "Permissions" link, instead on question mark. When I went back all of the form was blanked.
Note that I did that because I didn't want to be arrogant bureaucrat. People who want that project have already created SVG logo and I didn't want to insist that they have to create PNG derivative; I can do that, it should be easier.
So, I wanted to do that as I treat that as my responsibility. I filled the form once again and I had to spend next ~15 minutes while trying to upload the 20k logo: license is not correct, author is not correct, this is not correct, that is not correct. And I am using Commons from the time when it started to exist.
There is no way that I would be willing to upload any file on Commons because I would like to do it; just if I have to do it.
The logical question is, of course, have I complained about it? This problem exists for a year or so. And I am sure that I am not the only person who complained about it in various ways.
The first step in solving the problem is to ask one of the responsible persons to fix it. So, maybe a year ago, I've asked that person. He told me to fill the bug. No, I am not willing to fill the bug. (Note that I am doing that regularly as a LangCom member.)
There are three types of [technical] bugs in process: (1) mostly, nothing has been done; (2) my bug is redundant, someone is working [or not] on this issue already (in this case for a year or so); (3) if I am lucky and someone responds to the initial bug request, I would have to spend hours in defining, explaining etc.
And I just wanted to upload a photo or logo. It should last for 5-15 minutes, depending on my upload speed. Not hours in explaining what the problem is.
And if I have to spend hours every time when I see a problem, I think that it is much more reasonable to spend hours in talking about the problem in general.
This particular problem has and doesn't have responsible persons or groups. The problem lays somewhere between Commons community and WMF tech staff. And the point is that any of those groups could make our life easier, while I suppose that all of them think that it is not their problem, but the problem for which another group is responsible.
Both of the groups made right decisions at the lower level of complexity. The first one wanted to be sure that there are a lot of explanations, the second has put upload form with more useful features. However, the final product is a nightmare from the point of the basic usability: you can't upload file effectively, which is the main purpose of the upload form (and Commons).
I am sure that there are a lot of similar problems all over Wikimedia projects. Something has to be done generally. And once again, I don't know who should do that. Who should lead the synchronization process between various Wikimedia groups? Or, who should delegate that problem to a particular person or group?
[1] - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lambang_Wikipidia_Bahasa_Banjar.png
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 18:31, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
While I support the idea that we should have a discussion about how to manage and structure our bureaucratic elements, I think the distinction posited between American and European perspectives is imaginary. As an example, personally I have so far declined to accept "bureaucrat" status largely because of the connotations of the name. This despite the fact that I feel reasonably capable of navigating most bureaucracies (a skill that has far more to do with whether someone can "appreciate" bureaucracy than their nationality).
Thanks for making it clear :) It seemed to me that there is less antagonism toward bureaucracy among Americans. At least in Serbia, the *primary* meaning of the word "bureaucrat" is "a rigid person", not an administrative worker.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:35, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for making it clear :) It seemed to me that there is less antagonism toward bureaucracy among Americans.
Clearly, you have not had to sit through any of our political rhetoric, which saves a special sort of venom for the phrase "Washington bureaucrat".
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 19:47, Jim Redmond jim@scrubnugget.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:35, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for making it clear :) It seemed to me that there is less antagonism toward bureaucracy among Americans.
Clearly, you have not had to sit through any of our political rhetoric, which saves a special sort of venom for the phrase "Washington bureaucrat".
This is other kind of bureaucracy. Some parts of Europe were and some (including Serbia) are full of everyday Kafkian bureaucracy. You know: this is not the right window for you, go to the room 321b. ... This is not the right room 321b, there are eastern and western parts of the building, you should go there. And so on.
If I understood well, Americans don't have such bad feelings toward the word "bureaucracy" and its derivatives.
Wrong, the study of bureaucracy is considered by Americans to be a branch of entomology, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_studies
Yes, it's hard to collaborate; that's why Wikipedia is considered impossible by experts.
Fred
Hoi, Please leave the experts alone, in their expert opinion Wikipedia is impossible. In my observation Wikipedia does really well in attracting people to read what we provide. So much so that Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world. Obviously that is not how the reality of our success is measured. Obvious because Wikipedia is impossible. It is like the bumble bee, according to scientists it could not fly. In the mean time it bumbled along. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 September 2010 21:10, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
If I understood well, Americans don't have such bad feelings toward the word "bureaucracy" and its derivatives.
Wrong, the study of bureaucracy is considered by Americans to be a branch of entomology, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_studies
Yes, it's hard to collaborate; that's why Wikipedia is considered impossible by experts.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How bureaucracy works: the example
[...] Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world. Obviously that is not how the reality of our success is measured.
Of course not. The reality of its success would be: being a comprehensive and reliable reference source. It is not, yet.
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How bureaucracy works: the example
[...] Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world. Obviously that is not how the reality of our success is measured.
Of course not. The reality of its success would be: being a comprehensive and reliable reference source. It is not, yet.
Peter
When you're a big success it is very hard to continue to take the necessary actions to achieve genuine greatness. The usual response to suggestions of change is to circle the wagons.
Fred
Hoi, When you look at developments in the MediaWiki software, you find that usability is considered to be of prime importance. The software to make it easy to upload to Commons is in the finishing stages. There is a project waiting in the wings to make the creation of a user account much simpler.
If anything we are riding out toward the people and attempt to make it a modern experience. In order to make Wikipedia attractive, we can learn from our friends at Wikia. For them it makes commercial sense to grow their traffic. For us it makes ideological sense to grow our traffic. Never mind the rationale we achieve our goals by bringing information to our public.
The notion that we will be this all encompassing source of encyclopaedic wisdom is a static goal. Its achievement lies in the future. In the mean time we should enjoy the journey towards this goal. Circling the wagons is a defensive action. It is aimed at shooting the "injuns". We are not cowboys, and if we were, we would be driving the herd to pastures green. The wagons would be behind the herd, eating dust and doing whatever to make the journey enjoyable and getting the herd in good health to the other side of the rainbow. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 September 2010 13:09, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How bureaucracy works: the example
[...] Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world. Obviously that is not how the reality of our success is measured.
Of course not. The reality of its success would be: being a comprehensive and reliable reference source. It is not, yet.
Peter
When you're a big success it is very hard to continue to take the necessary actions to achieve genuine greatness. The usual response to suggestions of change is to circle the wagons.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How bureaucracy works: the example
[...] Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world. Obviously that is not how the reality of our success is measured.
Of course not. The reality of its success would be: being a comprehensive and reliable reference source. It is not, yet.
Peter
on 9/26/10 7:09 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
When you're a big success it is very hard to continue to take the necessary actions to achieve genuine greatness. The usual response to suggestions of change is to circle the wagons.
Yes. And a part of true greatness is the willingness, and the limitless ability, to innovate and to evolve.
Three quotes come to my mind regarding this:
* - "If we don't change, we don't grow. If we don't grow, we are not really living." -- Gail Sheehy
* - "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
And, to describe what the Project did in the beginning:
* - "Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Marc
Дана Saturday 25 September 2010 17:53:05 Milos Rancic написа:
So, I wanted to do that as I treat that as my responsibility. I filled the form once again and I had to spend next ~15 minutes while trying to upload the 20k logo: license is not correct, author is not correct, this is not correct, that is not correct. And I am using Commons from the time when it started to exist.
Solution to your problem: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadform...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org