A fairly long reply to Florence and Sebastian.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Florence Devouard wrote:
Being leaving you, I would like to share with you part
of an article
(which you may find in a rather famous encyclopedia). I invite all of
you to read it carefully.
Thank you for sharing.
Some organizations and networks, for example,
Wikipedia, the GNU/Linux
community and Indymedia, insist that not only the ordinary information
of interest to the community is made freely available, but that all (or
nearly all) meta-levels of organizing and decision-making are themselves
also published. This is known as radical transparency.
I think the last paragraph is interesting. Indeed, what some of you are
asking is radical transparency at the organization level. And radical
transparency is not really suitable for us
I regret that you feel this way. Are you deeply resolved that this is
right? You who always stood up for the rights of the unwanted on the
projects? The power of such transparency is being greatly undervalued --
indeed, even in this email on transparency, you do not once mention the
value of transparency explicitly. When did we start doubting this basic
I have always had the utmost faith in you as a board member, and then as
Chair, precisely because you have such a strong sense of openness and
propriety. So it disturbs me to read such muted overtones in this letter
in most part because we are in the eye-storm of the
media interest and
that any scandal (or non-scandal actually) is likely to raise the
interest of a journalist, and likely to spread at light-speed
Why are we as a project so sensitive? Why should we care? Wikipedia is
and will remain one of the most extraordinary collaborations in human
history. The greatest exercise in knowledge organization OF ALL TIME.
The one great strength of the project is that there has been only one;
there is nothing like it anywhere in the world, in any field. The
ramblings of a journalist out for a juicy story are hardly relevant on a
timescale of generations. Indeed, being remembered for radical
transparency would do more to cement Wikipedia's reputation than any
short-term gain in public approval. Why are we seeking 'public' approval?
Why should we care ? Collectively, we are likely to
mostly care because
of our economical system. We essentially rely on the goodwill of
donators, and donators are heavily sensitive to public displays of
disagreements, fights, errors, misestimates, major screw-ups.
Well, that's an interesting position. So we seek public approval for
short-term financial gain. I also think it is entirely wrong. I believe
that the most active and valuable contributors -- those few editors who
put in thousands of hours of work a year on the site, whose talents we as
a project could not possible find by posting job descriptions and trying
to hire 'editors', who are contributing the most to our little
Wiki-economy -- that those contributors will all appreciate this sort of
transparency. Tremendously; appreciate with the depth of spirit that
leads one to renew a commitment to devote one's spare waking hours to a
We should absolutely preserve a clean reputation; but that starts with
our most prolific and active donors : the people who pay close enough
attention to know the difference between a pr pitch and the truth :
the people who love and respect the history of often heated debate
which gave rise to Wikipedia as we know it.
And why should we want to hide fights, errors, and disagreements from the
world, those who are not yet contributors? This is the nature of life; of
collaboration; of any project. I think being open about conflict or tricky
issues is often the best way to draw new people in -- the best way to
encourage newfound trust. contribution to Wikipedia, like the foundation
of any economic system, is based on widespread trust.
And again, even from a publicity standpoint; shows and programs about the
instability of real life are today as popular as any on television. It is
a myth that people prefer or respect simple scripted story lines and a
facade of perfection to the turbulence of reality.
On the topic of having too little time and 'human resources' to deal
swiftly with certain things (like the treasurer search):
For example, we are looking for a treasurer. Can we
someone most of us have never met ? Likely not, but the next time we
I know there was a community calls for interested treasurers. But
was there a suggestion of having a public place to discuss these; or
even to see who has applied? What is the rationale there? With more
public discussion, many of us would have become more invested in the
issue, and would likely have had good suggestions to make.
Perhaps I am not the only one reading this list who can think of
potentially suitable person they have not contacted... Of course personal
resumes and other information could be submitted privately. But I wonder
if any of the truly eligible candidates are people who would not even want
their interest in the position to be published and discussed openly.
However, in the recent weeks, my belief is that, we
- a tendency to shut down requests and criticism,
whether on this list
or even on private lists, in an attempt to canalize the nature of
information being made available
- a tendency to craft "authorized" messaging, accompanied with severe
criticism against trusted members deviating from this authorized messages
What does this mean, for such a large [set of] project[s]? What is an
example of an authorized message?
Not all ideas in these three tendencies are wrong.
be a good idea in some circonstances and facilitate daily operations.
Privacy to discuss sensitive matters is obviously a good idea. And
speaking with a unique voice rather than a cloud of voices is
I'm not sure the last sentence is true. When there *is* a shared voice
and vision, that is strengthening. When this is forced, it is not.
Speaking with many different [genuine!] voices can also be strengthening.
But I would advise going too far on that path. It is
generally, it is frustrating many good contributors. In an environmental
situation which is very unstable with competitors, a rather
decentralized, flexible system, with plenty of opportunities to jump in
the system, is usually considered the best solution.
I agree it is frustrating many contributors. I don't think competition
has much to do with it...
This kind of transparency is detrimental to any
< significant size...
If, for example, a business has a tentative interest
in a deal with the
Wikimedia Foundation to publish Wikipedia content and use the trademark,
those following negotiations will necessarily be confidential as will be
the terms of the agreement. They have to be because incorporating
Wikipedia content in a new, innovative way can be a significant
competitive advantage - just think of the recent announcement by Spiegel
in Germany to create a new knowledge portal combining a variety of
sources with Wikipedia articles.
I agree with all of the changes you suggest later in your email,
Sebastian, but I disagree with your comments above... your example of the
Spiegel and other similar efforts are hardly ones that need to be kept
largely confidential -- if 10% of such discussions are kept private, that
should both be quite transparent and help avoid divulging sensitive
The competitive advantage argument falls flat; I suppose we could also
encourage innovation in MediaWiki by engaging in business deals with
people who want to develop competitive advantage by adding non-free
extensions -- after all, it is one of the most widely used pieces of
software in the world. There are good reasons, tied directly to goals of
sharing information with the widest possible audience, that we don't do
that. And the creators of the tools in question chose their licenses
carefully to preempt such arguments shutting down the free sharing of
Wishing you and everyone a happy holiday season, and a head start on
a productive and joyful 2008,