Hi.
The mailing list archives still aren't really searchable, but I have a question about whether the topic of having a Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman has been discussed previously.
To be clear, I'm not talking about a CheckUser/Privacy policy Ombudsman.[1] I'm talking about someone who would work within the Wikimedia Foundation for a fixed period of time to ensure that the Wikimedia Foundation is following its own guidelines and procedures and sticking to its principles.
National Public Radio has an Ombudsman (as do other news agencies and organizations). The NPR Ombudsman works within the organization and blogs about any actions that the organization takes that she feels need to be discussed on her blog.[2]
In theory, the Board of Trustees is responsible for ensuring the Wikimedia Foundation staff act in the best interests of the community, however the Board (as I understand it) (a) does not meet very often; and (b) obviously is not located in San Francisco and cannot be a part of daily operations.
Has the idea of having a Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman been discussed previously? If so, can someone shoot me some links to the past discussion (on the mailing list or perhaps on Meta-Wiki)? If not, is there any virtue to this idea?
If there is virtue to this idea, it seems like it might be reasonable to investigate whether a "Wikimedia fellow" could hold this position.[3]
MZMcBride
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission [2] http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/ [3] http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/?p=2398
It sounds like you are talking more about an inspection than an ombudsman. The problem with your proposal is that disagreements between the Foundation and community are usually due to it being very unclear what the roles of each are. There isn't a rulebook that someone can make sure the WMF is following. There is a committee working on clearing up the roles of different parts of the movement, but I don't know if they'll actually come up with anything specific enough to be inspected against.
On 21 November 2010 06:16, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
The mailing list archives still aren't really searchable, but I have a question about whether the topic of having a Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman has been discussed previously.
To be clear, I'm not talking about a CheckUser/Privacy policy Ombudsman.[1] I'm talking about someone who would work within the Wikimedia Foundation for a fixed period of time to ensure that the Wikimedia Foundation is following its own guidelines and procedures and sticking to its principles.
National Public Radio has an Ombudsman (as do other news agencies and organizations). The NPR Ombudsman works within the organization and blogs about any actions that the organization takes that she feels need to be discussed on her blog.[2]
In theory, the Board of Trustees is responsible for ensuring the Wikimedia Foundation staff act in the best interests of the community, however the Board (as I understand it) (a) does not meet very often; and (b) obviously is not located in San Francisco and cannot be a part of daily operations.
Has the idea of having a Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman been discussed previously? If so, can someone shoot me some links to the past discussion (on the mailing list or perhaps on Meta-Wiki)? If not, is there any virtue to this idea?
If there is virtue to this idea, it seems like it might be reasonable to investigate whether a "Wikimedia fellow" could hold this position.[3]
MZMcBride
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission [2] http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/ [3] http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/?p=2398
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It sounds like you are talking more about an inspection than an ombudsman. The problem with your proposal is that disagreements between the Foundation and community are usually due to it being very unclear what the roles of each are. There isn't a rulebook that someone can make sure the WMF is following. There is a committee working on clearing up the roles of different parts of the movement, but I don't know if they'll actually come up with anything specific enough to be inspected against.
I wouldn't say that disagreements are due to unclear roles. I would say most disagreements come from the Wikimedia Foundation not adhering to its principles, values, and mission as closely as some feel it should. This includes a commitment to transparency and accountability.
MZMcBride
On 21 November 2010 21:14, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I wouldn't say that disagreements are due to unclear roles. I would say most disagreements come from the Wikimedia Foundation not adhering to its principles, values, and mission as closely as some feel it should. This includes a commitment to transparency and accountability.
What are some examples of particular current problems that you feel this position would fix?
Why is this particular proposed position the tool to fix them?
How do you envision this tool working in your example problems?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 21 November 2010 21:14, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I wouldn't say that disagreements are due to unclear roles. I would say most disagreements come from the Wikimedia Foundation not adhering to its principles, values, and mission as closely as some feel it should. This includes a commitment to transparency and accountability.
What are some examples of particular current problems that you feel this position would fix?
I'm not sure I agree that this position is designed to fix any current problems. The task of fixing the problems lies with those currently in power at the Wikimedia Foundation. However, in order to address problems, problems must be clearly defined. That can be the role of an ombudsman. Like most ombudsman positions, the task inside the Wikimedia Foundation would be to point out the problems and encourage discussion of them (cf. National Public Radio Ombudsman's blog).
I don't think there would be any lack of issues that the Ombudsman could address, but in general I would say that the focus would be on issues that relate to violations of or perceived violations of the Wikimedia Foundation's principles. For example, if the Wikimedia Foundation is engaging in a large amount of non-public but relevant discussion that members of the community feel is inappropriate, the Ombudsman could investigate and discuss the issue. Similarly, if the Ombudsman feels that the Wikimedia Foundation is allocating resources in a manner inconsistent with its mission and purpose, that could be up for discussion as well.
Why is this particular proposed position the tool to fix them?
Sometimes it's best to look at how other organizations have addressed an issue and take lessons away from them. There isn't a need to always reinvent the wheel, so to speak. It seems like an accepted practice among reputable organizations to implement an ombudsman position. As noted in the opening post, there are already some mechanisms in place to ensure that the Wikimedia Foundation is adhering to its principles (a Board of Trustees, e.g.), however there are severe limitations to those mechanisms currently. If there is an issue with a lack of open and public communication, for example, any non-physical presence will not be able to measure or observe this effectively, I think.
Is there a reason you think an ombudsman position would not work at Wikimedia?
How do you envision this tool working in your example problems?
One proposed idea is to have a "Wikimedia fellow" fill the position. There are other solutions for implementing this idea, but there are issues of cart and horse order, I think.
The original e-mail was asking if there had been past discussion about this idea or if there any virtue to it. You seem to have not answered either question. :-)
MZMcBride
On 22 November 2010 07:26, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
What are some examples of particular current problems that you feel this position would fix?
I'm not sure I agree that this position is designed to fix any current problems. The task of fixing the problems lies with those currently in power at the Wikimedia Foundation. However, in order to address problems, problems must be clearly defined. That can be the role of an ombudsman. Like most ombudsman positions, the task inside the Wikimedia Foundation would be to point out the problems and encourage discussion of them (cf. National Public Radio Ombudsman's blog).
OK, no particular current problems, but you think that it might be worth putting into place in general.
I was thinking in terms of "if there's no particular problems in need of solving, then there's no reason to create a new position." But as you point out, there are working examples in other nonprofits that make media, which does make the idea seem more likely to be a useful one.
Why is this particular proposed position the tool to fix them?
Sometimes it's best to look at how other organizations have addressed an issue and take lessons away from them. There isn't a need to always reinvent the wheel, so to speak. It seems like an accepted practice among reputable organizations to implement an ombudsman position.
That's a plausible purpose, yes.
Is there a reason you think an ombudsman position would not work at Wikimedia?
Not that springs to mind.
How do you envision this tool working in your example problems?
One proposed idea is to have a "Wikimedia fellow" fill the position. There are other solutions for implementing this idea, but there are issues of cart and horse order, I think.
Looking at existing models would probably be the first thing to do. MOVED: Mzmcbride to assemble report. ;-p
The original e-mail was asking if there had been past discussion about this idea or if there any virtue to it. You seem to have not answered either question. :-)
I couldn't think of any and I didn't know of any, hence asking for more detail on what you were thinking of.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org