(for those not willing to read a long email, just jump at the end of it to read the 6 proposed values)
--------
I would like to propose to the board to finalize (-> approve) the values of Wikimedia Foundation.
What is it about ? It would be a collection of common words or ideas which reflects what is important to us, as an organization. It comes on top of * the vision tagline, which is our bold goal * the mission statements, which describe what the organization is doing to reach its goal The values represent the principles we share together
What is the difference with the Wikipedia pillars ? The values I am talking about are the *organization* (WMF) values, not the projects values. Obviously, many values will be shared, but not necessarily all of them. For example, Wikipedia has NPOV as a pillar, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have NPOV as a pillar.
What is the difference between "vision", "mission" and "values" ? Imagine you are a WMF staff member, you are at a dinner with your grand-mother and she asks "so tell me about your job, is it interesting ? do you have to wear a suit ?" Your answer might be "eh, we want to give access to information to every one in the world (vision). So, to make that happen, we host some freely accessible internet web sites where people can add information (mission). My own job is to make sure we have enough cash to operate, so I raise money from people and companies (my job). What is real cool is that I am not the only one doing that, but many volunteers from all over the world help as well; sometimes it is not easy, because I need to keep them informed a lot of what I am doing even though they are not my boss. Also, it is very important to us to stay independant, so I have to find funds from various sources. It makes things more complicated, but it is super exciting ! As for the suit, the team is very geek like, very diverse set, most have already been living in other countries. So, as long as we are clean and careful not to hurt anyone sensitivities, no need to wear a suit on a daily basis !" (values)
Why do we need that ? Some of you would consider that unnecessary. I would respectfully disagree :-) There are two main reasons we should have these values written down, one is related to "branding" (public perception of our uniqueness), the other to "management" (training of our staff members).
It is important that "outsiders" (donors, partners, governments, civil society...) understand what is important to us, what is welcome and what is non negotiable. Donors will give us money more easily if they know what is important to us, and actually agree with our values. Potential partners will not lose our valuable time and their valuable time proposing proprietary software deals if they know it is a deal-breaker for us. Wikipedia in particular, currently enjoys very much support because it is clearly identified as a brand. Other Wikimedia projects are not as well clearly identified yet (there are still people wondering what Wikiversity exactly is about for example). During the past year, the WMF motto has been "we are a non profit", and still many people think it is a business company. People do not approach a non-profit and a for-profit in the same way. In any cases, most people have no idea of the existence of WMF, and when they do think about organization, they believe we have 10.000 employees somewhere in the Silicon Valley, and open big round shocked eyes when they learn the truth. There are also beliefs that, as a web 2.0 company, every one can do whatever they want on the websites, and no one is responsible. We should kill such an idea in the egg, and make sure that the common view becomes that thriving to quality is one of our major motto.
Values are not only what make us stick together, but also general guidelines for what we want to become, what we are really trying hard to do, and what we want to be known as specific about us.
Which is also why it is important to management. The bottom line concept is that the staff is ultimately trying to achieve the VISION, thanks to operational activity (the MISSION), and deep respect of the VALUES.
The put it bluntly: no decision should be made that could hurt the values. Any time a decision is on the plate, the staff and volunteers should keep in mind "does it go along with our values, or against our values ?"
Example: It seems that past and recent discussions show how important it was for the community that our entire projects be build upon free software, using free format and free standards. It goes beyond the simple notion of creating freely-licenced content, as described in the mission statement. Whilst supporting, defending, developing, the free mouvement is NOT our goal, nor even within our mission, it seems to be an important value to most of us. Hence, the very notion of listing our support to freedom is a VALUE, which has been clarified in a recent resolution.
As a value, anytime the staff is thinking of making a deal with a partner, it should ask himself, "is that all right with the freedom value" ? If it is not, no deal. Period.
Other values have other impacts. When we talked to Sue last summer before hiring her, we made super clear that it was super important to us to hire staff with international awareness (either non US staff, or US staff having lived outside of the US, or at a minimum, US staff being multilingual). Sue has been extremely careful to take such guidelines into account, and all recently hired staff is in one way or another, respecting these guidelines. Practically, if a staff member was at some point voicing such opinion that "non US people are jerks", I would consider that ground for being fired.
---------
Last summer, the board + advisory board brainstormed together over our values. We further discussed the issue on this list, as well as here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values I have been thinking over it in the past few weeks, and here is the result of my list.
* Community * Diversity * Quality of service * Transparency * Freedom * Independance
Text is rough draft for now
Our community is our biggest asset We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
Commitment to openness and diversity Though US-based, the organization is international in its nature. Our board of trustees, staff members, and volunteers are involved without discrimination based on their religion, political beliefs, sexual preferences, nationalities etc... Not only do we accept diversity, but we actually look forward to it.
Quality of service is a priority We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
Freedom We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software.
Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.
Independance As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations from a limited number of sources, and try to multiply the number of sources.
----------
are they comments at this point ?
Sorry for the verrrry long email :-)
Ant
I generally agree with your points. The only comment I would make is regarding the order - while you didn't explicitly number the values, so the order you gave may not represent priorities as you see them, I think it is important to put them in order in order to resolve conflicts between them (for example, should we give up independence in order to keep the community happy? [not that I can see that ever coming up])
I would order them:
1) Freedom 2) Transparency 3) Independence 4) Quality of service 5) Diversity 6) Community
The main reasoning behind that order is that things like Community and Diversity are really just what we consider to be the best way of achieving things like Freedom and Transparency. Our main value is Freedom, the other values are just means to an end.
Allow to take a long, well-thought out email and pick at a single point.
On Jan 29, 2008 2:05 PM, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
<snip>
Freedom
We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software.
<snip>
If this is how you intend to define "Freedom", then you should relabel it "Open Source". The word "freedom" conveys a much grander expression than: we like free software and open formats. As a WMF value, a commitment to open source is certainly an actionable principle and something that I think we do value, but it is far less expansive than "Freedom" in general.
Thomas Dalton suggests that perhaps "Freedom" should be the first principle, and I'm inclined to agree with that, but it needs to be freedom in the broader sense, including: Free content, Free tools for collaboration, Freedom to fork, Freedom from undue influences, etc.
Personally, I want the WMF to maintain a community free from undue constraints that will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be distributed freely throughout the world. In my opinion, that is the kind of intellectual freedom at the heart of what WMF ought to be setting out to accomplish, and which should be at the core of what we value. I realize this overlaps with the Mission Statement, etc., but frankly it is so basic to what we do, that I think it ought to overlap.
-Robert A. Rohde
P.S. Unlike Thomas, I'd keep Community near the top of the list, though probably not first.
Thomas Dalton suggests that perhaps "Freedom" should be the first principle, and I'm inclined to agree with that, but it needs to be freedom in the broader sense, including: Free content, Free tools for collaboration, Freedom to fork, Freedom from undue influences, etc.
Agreed, I would define freedom much more generally. Using open source software to run the servers is all well and good, but it's hardly the most important thing.
I agree with Tom and Rob. "Freedom" really needs to be moved to the top of the list, our definition of it needs to be expanded, and we need to really frame it as being the most important of these values. We need to think on grand terms here. It's the mass-liberation of all human knowledge that should really be our most powerful value.
--Andrew Whitworth
As a contributor, I do believe this is the kind of a Foundation we can build upon.
This might just be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Tipping my hat;
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Hi Florence,
in general, a good post. Thanks for explaining what you read under "values", so that there are no misunderstandings about that.
2008/1/29, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org:
I have been thinking over it in the past few weeks, and here is the result of my list.
- Community
- Diversity
- Quality of service
- Transparency
- Freedom
- Independance
Text is rough draft for now
<snip>
Quality of service is a priority We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
<snip>
Personally I don't feel that the order should be that important in this post, although it is true that in a conflict between the values (for instance between the Quality of service and the transperency, which I expect to come up quite some times for staff, or between Freedom and Quality of Service on one side and Independence on the other) it should be roughly clear how valuable each of these values are, which are the core values (Maybe we should look back to the mission and goal stated in the articles of incorporation and bylaws for that) and which are "how we tend to work". How we tend to work might be very important to us though, so it is of course still a very important value. However, in an equal conflict, the core values (Freedom, Quality of Service) should imho always prevail over the "how we tend to work" (Community, Diversity, Transperency). Independance is in the middle between those I think.
But this also brings up to me that Quality of Service is not really a fitting description. I find it very important that the content is available. However, not per se only through our website service, but maybe in the future also through DVD's, OLPC's, books and PDF's. And who knows what else. I'd suggest to change that to Availability of content or something similar, maybe someone else has a better description.
Thanks for bringing this up to our attention,
Lodewijk
--- effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Florence,
in general, a good post. Thanks for explaining what you read under "values", so that there are no misunderstandings about that.
2008/1/29, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org:
I have been thinking over it in the past few
weeks, and here is the
result of my list.
- Community
- Diversity
- Quality of service
- Transparency
- Freedom
- Independance
Text is rough draft for now
<snip> > Quality of service is a priority > We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project > content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to > regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project > content. > To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do > not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our > content or use of our trademarks. > <snip>
Personally I don't feel that the order should be that important in this post, although it is true that in a conflict between the values (for instance between the Quality of service and the transperency, which I expect to come up quite some times for staff, or between Freedom and Quality of Service on one side and Independence on the other) it should be roughly clear how valuable each of these values are, which are the core values (Maybe we should look back to the mission and goal stated in the articles of incorporation and bylaws for that) and which are "how we tend to work". How we tend to work might be very important to us though, so it is of course still a very important value. However, in an equal conflict, the core values (Freedom, Quality of Service) should imho always prevail over the "how we tend to work" (Community, Diversity, Transperency). Independance is in the middle between those I think.
But this also brings up to me that Quality of Service is not really a fitting description. I find it very important that the content is available. However, not per se only through our website service, but maybe in the future also through DVD's, OLPC's, books and PDF's. And who knows what else. I'd suggest to change that to Availability of content or something similar, maybe someone else has a better description.
Thanks for bringing this up to our attention,
Lodewijk
How aout "Accessibility"?
In dealing with free content for en.WS I always think of the two main concerns as "Freedom" and "Accessibility". There are many PD works which are free from copyright but will never be scanned and put online because they only exist in a collection with retricted *access*. I think this is the issue Florence really means to address here, all the legal freedom to distribute modify something is useless if you cannot get access to it.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Birgitte SB wrote:
How aout "Accessibility"?
In dealing with free content for en.WS I always think of the two main concerns as "Freedom" and "Accessibility". There are many PD works which are free from copyright but will never be scanned and put online because they only exist in a collection with retricted *access*. I think this is the issue Florence really means to address here, all the legal freedom to distribute modify something is useless if you cannot get access to it.
I agree with you, though the word "accessibility" isn't very best, as it usually refers to possibility of acces of disabled persons.
Florence Devouard wrote:
The values represent the principles we share together
What is the difference with the Wikipedia pillars ? The values I am talking about are the *organization* (WMF) values, not the projects values. Obviously, many values will be shared, but not necessarily all of them. For example, Wikipedia has NPOV as a pillar, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have NPOV as a pillar.
The difficulty when you establish a distinction between WMF and projects' values is that it tends to focus on the difference. If community is to be a key value then effort should be directed at bringing these distinct values into harmony.
While NPOV is indeed a Wikipedia value, other projects cannot ignore it It's direct role in the life of other projects may be more limited, but it still underlies a lot of activity. We can't have Wikinews reporters injecting their bias into stories. Wikisource must accept that texts are as they are without attempting to designate one as containing better ideas. Wiktionary cannot start inventing definitions. Even Wikispecies must find a neutral approach to issues of traditional taxonomy versus modern cladistics.
Wikipedia in particular, currently enjoys very much support because it is clearly identified as a brand. Other Wikimedia projects are not as well clearly identified yet (there are still people wondering what Wikiversity exactly is about for example).
Is there a hurry for them to be so identified? The fundamental notions underlying Wikiversity are more complex than for any other project. Treating Meta as more of an internal project, all the other projects are about the information we provide to the public. Wikiversity is distinct because it is about people's relationships with the information. Wikiversity should not be thrust into a popularity contest when it is still trying to find itself. I see it's long term value as a broadly useful and usable educational tool. That's a much more difficult task that sticking discrete bundles of information onto the internet.
There are also beliefs that, as a web 2.0 company, every one can do whatever they want on the websites, and no one is responsible.
This leads to a significant philosophical question between collective and individual responsibility. If we end up saying that no one is responsible, there is a serious ethical flaw in that philosophy. The internet has unleashed tools for the evil-doers just as much as for the rest of us. The pressure is on legislators to put serious restrictions against online abuses, and the kind of solutions that they are likely to effect will have closer ties to expediency than to enlightenment.
There are obvious areas of collective responsibility, such as keeping the servers going and otherwise maintaining infrastructure. Beyond that I think it's important to stress the importance of individual responsibility. We cannot put ourselves in the position of being the ones to decide whether someone else's actions are illegal without sacrificing the neutrality of an ISP. We can notice strong possibilities that an act may be illegal, but we cannot judge. We can also tell those people who insist on posting questionable material that they cannot do so behind the cloak of anonymity. If they want to persist they must make sufficient personal information available to allow those whose rights have been violated to take action.
It seems that past and recent discussions show how important it was for the community that our entire projects be build upon free software, using free format and free standards. It goes beyond the simple notion of creating freely-licenced content, as described in the mission statement. Whilst supporting, defending, developing, the free mouvement is NOT our goal, nor even within our mission, it seems to be an important value to most of us. Hence, the very notion of listing our support to freedom is a VALUE, which has been clarified in a recent resolution.
It's important to note that values are not rules. Values still leave room for pragmatic considerations, and strict rules against the use of proprietary software should never be an excuse for putting ourselves at serious disadvantage.
Last summer, the board + advisory board brainstormed together over our values. We further discussed the issue on this list, as well as here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values
I would also see Wikicouncil addressing this to give the perspective of seriously involved people.
I have been thinking over it in the past few weeks, and here is the result of my list.
- Community
- Diversity
- Quality of service
- Transparency
- Freedom
- Independance
Text is rough draft for now
Good. But I would take to task those who would create a priority for one over another. Put them into alphabetical order and stress that they are all equal. Saying that one is more important than another will give some interpreters a trump card that they will not hesitate to play. Some of the most difficult problems arise from conflicts of values when both sides have clearly valid positions. Those situations require a balanced and negotiated solution with neither side having a tool for triumph. Such tools breed rigidity.
Our community is our biggest asset We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
Commitment to openness and diversity Though US-based, the organization is international in its nature. Our board of trustees, staff members, and volunteers are involved without discrimination based on their religion, political beliefs, sexual preferences, nationalities etc... Not only do we accept diversity, but we actually look forward to it.
Good. We also need diversity of opinion and ideas. Concepts like "Be bold." and "Ignore all rules" are also important. We need to protect ourseves from those who depend on rigid literal interpretations of rules.
Quality of service is a priority We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
Freedom We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software.
The description does not match the title. I agree with the description, but find the title misleading. A public that sees only a six-word list would never guess that description. It is easy to imagine that they would take the word "freedom" into areas that we would do well to avoid. We do not want claims that we must support irresponsible speech, or that we are somehow a force in political movements such as working for the "freedom" for the Tibetan people. Individuals can still support that idea, but it is well beyond our collective scope. A term like "open sourcing" might be more to the point.
Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.
Independance As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations from a limited number of sources, and try to multiply the number of sources.
I'm generally supportive of these ideas, but they need work.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
The values represent the principles we share together
What is the difference with the Wikipedia pillars ? The values I am talking about are the *organization* (WMF) values, not the projects values. Obviously, many values will be shared, but not necessarily all of them. For example, Wikipedia has NPOV as a pillar, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have NPOV as a pillar.
The difficulty when you establish a distinction between WMF and projects' values is that it tends to focus on the difference. If community is to be a key value then effort should be directed at bringing these distinct values into harmony.
While NPOV is indeed a Wikipedia value, other projects cannot ignore it It's direct role in the life of other projects may be more limited, but it still underlies a lot of activity. We can't have Wikinews reporters injecting their bias into stories. Wikisource must accept that texts are as they are without attempting to designate one as containing better ideas. Wiktionary cannot start inventing definitions. Even Wikispecies must find a neutral approach to issues of traditional taxonomy versus modern cladistics.
I fully understand what you say Ec, but the values I am trying to identify are to be the ones driving the activity of the Foundation. Not of the projects. NPOV, just as "be bold" are values of the projects. I love these values, but I see not how and why they should fit as values of a legal entity.
Wikipedia in particular, currently enjoys very much support because it is clearly identified as a brand. Other Wikimedia projects are not as well clearly identified yet (there are still people wondering what Wikiversity exactly is about for example).
Is there a hurry for them to be so identified? The fundamental notions underlying Wikiversity are more complex than for any other project. Treating Meta as more of an internal project, all the other projects are about the information we provide to the public. Wikiversity is distinct because it is about people's relationships with the information. Wikiversity should not be thrust into a popularity contest when it is still trying to find itself. I see it's long term value as a broadly useful and usable educational tool. That's a much more difficult task that sticking discrete bundles of information onto the internet.
You are correct, there is no hurry to identify them :-) In any cases, I do not think that is the job of the Foundation to identify these values. That's the job of the community working there.
There are also beliefs that, as a web 2.0 company, every one can do whatever they want on the websites, and no one is responsible.
This leads to a significant philosophical question between collective and individual responsibility. If we end up saying that no one is responsible, there is a serious ethical flaw in that philosophy. The internet has unleashed tools for the evil-doers just as much as for the rest of us. The pressure is on legislators to put serious restrictions against online abuses, and the kind of solutions that they are likely to effect will have closer ties to expediency than to enlightenment.
There are obvious areas of collective responsibility, such as keeping the servers going and otherwise maintaining infrastructure. Beyond that I think it's important to stress the importance of individual responsibility. We cannot put ourselves in the position of being the ones to decide whether someone else's actions are illegal without sacrificing the neutrality of an ISP. We can notice strong possibilities that an act may be illegal, but we cannot judge. We can also tell those people who insist on posting questionable material that they cannot do so behind the cloak of anonymity. If they want to persist they must make sufficient personal information available to allow those whose rights have been violated to take action.
I am not sure I really understand you here... I am very very supportive for us to take responsibility when we are responsible. You are correct we should really stress out that editors are responsible of what they write, and that should be in anyone mind. Beyond this, as a hosting provider, the WMF has the responsibility of removing content deemed illegal.
It seems that past and recent discussions show how important it was for the community that our entire projects be build upon free software, using free format and free standards. It goes beyond the simple notion of creating freely-licenced content, as described in the mission statement. Whilst supporting, defending, developing, the free mouvement is NOT our goal, nor even within our mission, it seems to be an important value to most of us. Hence, the very notion of listing our support to freedom is a VALUE, which has been clarified in a recent resolution.
It's important to note that values are not rules. Values still leave room for pragmatic considerations, and strict rules against the use of proprietary software should never be an excuse for putting ourselves at serious disadvantage.
It is correct values are not generally rules. They are primarily there to convey what is important to us, from what is not (or less important). Secondary, they can constitute guidelines for those running the Foundation. And then, sometimes, they are so important that they require ruling (resolutions).
Last summer, the board + advisory board brainstormed together over our values. We further discussed the issue on this list, as well as here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values
I would also see Wikicouncil addressing this to give the perspective of seriously involved people.
In the absence of a Wikicouncil, I am asking your opinion guys :-)
I have been thinking over it in the past few weeks, and here is the result of my list.
- Community
- Diversity
- Quality of service
- Transparency
- Freedom
- Independance
Text is rough draft for now
Good. But I would take to task those who would create a priority for one over another. Put them into alphabetical order and stress that they are all equal. Saying that one is more important than another will give some interpreters a trump card that they will not hesitate to play. Some of the most difficult problems arise from conflicts of values when both sides have clearly valid positions. Those situations require a balanced and negotiated solution with neither side having a tool for triumph. Such tools breed rigidity.
I tend to agree with you. I think it is probably best not to order them... because no one will ever succeed to agree on an order, because priorities may be slightly different depending on people and circonstances. Also, some might argue the most important is at the top, whilst others will argue that the most important is the bottom (foundation) :-)
Our community is our biggest asset We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
Commitment to openness and diversity Though US-based, the organization is international in its nature. Our board of trustees, staff members, and volunteers are involved without discrimination based on their religion, political beliefs, sexual preferences, nationalities etc... Not only do we accept diversity, but we actually look forward to it.
Good. We also need diversity of opinion and ideas. Concepts like "Be bold." and "Ignore all rules" are also important. We need to protect ourseves from those who depend on rigid literal interpretations of rules.
"Be bold" and "ignore all rules" may not be suitable in an organization.... At the project level, it is a value. At the organization level, I think it is more a management issue. I'll let that to the management.
Quality of service is a priority We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
Freedom We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software.
The description does not match the title. I agree with the description, but find the title misleading. A public that sees only a six-word list would never guess that description. It is easy to imagine that they would take the word "freedom" into areas that we would do well to avoid. We do not want claims that we must support irresponsible speech, or that we are somehow a force in political movements such as working for the "freedom" for the Tibetan people. Individuals can still support that idea, but it is well beyond our collective scope. A term like "open sourcing" might be more to the point.
Okay, I am reworking that paragraph
Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.
Independance As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations from a limited number of sources, and try to multiply the number of sources.
I'm generally supportive of these ideas, but they need work.
Yup {{be bold}} :-)
ant
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I love it. I also agree that having written-down values is extremely useful and, well, valuable.
Other values have other impacts. When we talked to Sue last summer before hiring her, we made super clear that it was super important to us to hire staff with international awareness (either non US staff, or US staff having lived outside of the US, or at a minimum, US staff being multilingual). Sue has been extremely careful to take such guidelines into account, and all recently hired staff is in one way or another, respecting these guidelines.
I'm sure I am not the only editor that appreciates that WMF is really following through on this commitment to its global community, and not thinking the US is "enough". It's really impressive and great leadership.
Quality of service is a priority We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
I wonder if this "quality of service" might not be simplified to "Quality" to incorporate that communities have a value of accurate, readable, useful information - not just whatever data there happens to be.
The dumps point also in my mind relates to community & freedom (below).
Freedom We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software.
I think Freedom is an important point but it just needs to be expanded. Link it to free licenses. So far there is no mention of free licenses and that is something that needs to be mentioned I think. Maybe "free software" needs a qualifier "a la FSF" because this is something that is still not clearly understood, in my experience at least.
Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.
The communities also rely on transparent mechanisms.
But... I suppose the communities' values are for the communities to determine.... :) WMF is showing a good lead then.
Independance As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations from a limited number of sources, and try to multiply the number of sources.
"reserve the right to refuse donations from a limited number of sources" is not quite clear in this context, needs clarification or rewording.
I wonder if it is worth mentioning Neutrality, or whether it may be considered part of Quality (as in, neutral things are higher quality than biased things).
I agree that NPOV is not good to have as a direct value - it can't quite work for all the projects - but even POV material can be presented in a neutral way, or flagged as non-neutral, and that is good and appropriate I think.
cheers, Brianna
On 31/01/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that NPOV is not good to have as a direct value - it can't quite work for all the projects - but even POV material can be presented in a neutral way, or flagged as non-neutral, and that is good and appropriate I think.
"neutral and appropriate presentation"?
(I personally consider NPOV to be Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting everyone edit the content. Has there ever before been a major encyclopedia with *neutrality* as a core value?)
- d.
Although it might be good to present content in a neutral way, I do not think neutrality should be a value in this list. Please corrcet me if I am wrong, but this list is not meant as the six pillars every project should follow. It is meant for staff members and others working on *foundation* level. The Foundation does not have to be neutral. To mention an obvious one, we are not neutral towards licenses and copyright. Nor do we (I at least) want to be. There is a big difference between trying to present neutrally information (which is what the community is supposed to do, not the WMF at first), or trying to act neutrally.
So although i agree that neutrality is important, like I feel a lot of other things important, it does not belong here imho.
BR, Lodewijk
2008/1/31, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 31/01/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that NPOV is not good to have as a direct value - it can't quite work for all the projects - but even POV material can be presented in a neutral way, or flagged as non-neutral, and that is good and appropriate I think.
"neutral and appropriate presentation"?
(I personally consider NPOV to be Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting everyone edit the content. Has there ever before been a major encyclopedia with *neutrality* as a core value?)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 31/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Although it might be good to present content in a neutral way, I do not think neutrality should be a value in this list. Please corrcet me if I am wrong, but this list is not meant as the six pillars every project should follow. It is meant for staff members and others working on *foundation* level. The Foundation does not have to be neutral. To mention an obvious one, we are not neutral towards licenses and copyright. Nor do we (I at least) want to be. There is a big difference between trying to present neutrally information (which is what the community is supposed to do, not the WMF at first), or trying to act neutrally. So although i agree that neutrality is important, like I feel a lot of other things important, it does not belong here imho.
Ah, yes, you're right. Please ignore my message :-)
- d.
Florence Devouard [mailto:anthere@anthere.org] On: Wednesday, 30 January 2008 9:06 AM Said,
What is it about? ..... The values represent the principles we share together.
Thanks Florence. OK, So it's about "our" guiding Principles.
So where, "Wikipedia (as one project) has NPOV as a pillar(ed principle)", Wikversity has almost the exact opposite as theirs. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Research_grant_collaboration_group And where this group's readers prefer a long list and (perhaps) IRC, another
will prefer a google group or a forum and skypecast. (DIVERSITY)
BTW, yu asked about a forum. This is what one example does to this list. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/
You'll notice I did link your Values page back to the groups' August meeting, so we can see the original and complete list, and the context in which they were generated. Priorities are where Principles hit the tarmac, so to be fair, we need to see them in order to gain an UNDERSTANDING (which is always my number 1 guiding principle) of the group think, at that time. http://advisory.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meeting_August_2007/Notes#Priorities
As you said, "It is important that "outsiders" (donors, partners, governments, civil society...) understand what is important to us, what is welcome and what is non negotiable". And as you already know that communications is one of the prime WMF.org "Weaknesses", we should add INCLUSION to the top of the list. (especially if we'd like a sponsor or two)
Priorities also give an insight into the thinking about organisational architecture. If I'd know the discussion about groups (Ubuntu's subject teams) had already taken place I would have saved my breath this month. I'm not sure of a principle which helps to overcome the obstacle of perceived hierarchical difference between one group and another. One's like 'democratic', 'independent' and 'freedom' become parodies when people are not seen to be included, a la Taipei and after. So perhaps your own PERSEVERENCE here, like many from the advisory group is better; a bit more real.
Actions speak louder than words in this RESPECT.
Just like TRANSPARENCY is normally simply a quality of good or bad communication, or categorization.
The only one (as others have inferred) I'd hit on the head with a big stick, due to the often misinterpretation of the phrase, is "Quality of Service". To an older person "Service" is meant to be "silver"; whereas youngsters have only known "self". In the Nth American end of the world, which is a terribly mechanized one, it means "efficiency" and "productivity". It may have our San Fran team believing they are somewhat different or more important than any other little team; that they are leading things.
It would be very sad to watch the fast burn of good talent with such a misunderstanding, when 95% of 'our' resource is sitting in other localities. And 95% of 'our' INNOVATION being stifled by "best practice". Regards, simon
............................................................ Imagine you are a person who has done a little editing on a WMF project, and you are at a dinner with your grand-mother. She asks "so tell me about Wikipedia, what it is all about?"
Well wikipedia is just the best known project of a Foundation that aims to share knowledge around the world. Basically, they started by using a tool called a wiki, which allows people to put up one page and, by letting anyone add to and edit with it, has produced a free encyclopaedia in a bunch of different languages. It's just a modern version of what those French guys were doing back in the mid 1700's. You know, Diderot and Co.
"That's nice dear, so the foundation helps people to be joint publishers? (COLLABORATION). So who chooses what is left on a page?"
Well that's a matter of coming to a consensus. If that informal way doesn't work then there's an elaborate system of escalating arbitration.
"I can imagine there are a lot of arguments".
That's true. A lot of people think it's unnecessary, but it seems to work so long as they (RESPECT)fully disagree. But you know how it works, the more quality communication, the less arbitration is needed. And with a globalizing world, that a bit of a problem at the moment. ...............................................................
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1251 - Release Date: 30/01/2008 9:29 AM
Second draft, taking into account many comments offered (thanks !)
What do you think ?
-----------
Freedom An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse. At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with freely-licenced tools for participation and collaboration. Our community should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps. The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be distributed freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free software tools.
Accessibility and quality All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational content is useless if users cannot get access to it. We try our best to give online access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. We try, through partnerships if necessary, to ensure the widest distribution, through DVD's, books, PDF's, or other non-internet based means. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
Independance As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations which could generate constraints, and try to multiply the diversity of revenue sources.
Commitment to openness and diversity Though US-based, the organization is international in its nature. Our board of trustees, staff members, and volunteers are involved without discrimination based on their religion, political beliefs, sexual preferences, nationalities, etc... Not only do we accept diversity, but we actually look forward to it.
Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.
Our community is our biggest asset We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
On Jan 31, 2008 9:05 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Second draft, taking into account many comments offered (thanks !)
What do you think ?
This second draft is an excellent one. It has my approval (for whatever that's worth).
--Andrew Whitworth
On 01/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Second draft, taking into account many comments offered (thanks !)
What do you think ?
Great. The "Freedom" one is much stronger now.
Also I assume a spellchecker would run over this sooner or later but "Independance" is bugging me a bit :) -> "Independence". </pedant>
cheers, Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 01/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Second draft, taking into account many comments offered (thanks !)
What do you think ?
Great. The "Freedom" one is much stronger now.
Also I assume a spellchecker would run over this sooner or later but "Independance" is bugging me a bit :) -> "Independence".
</pedant>
oh... hmmm During the past few weeks, I learned to transform my "responsability" in "responsibility". So, independence is next in line :-)
ant
On 05/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
During the past few weeks, I learned to transform my "responsability" in "responsibility". So, independence is next in line :-)
I was surprised when I got to the UK to discover that "dependant" (both adjective and noun) is in common, even government, use here - it's regarded as just wrong in Australia. But I've never seen "independant" in official use, and "dependent" remains correct (more correct I think personally).
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 05/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
During the past few weeks, I learned to transform my "responsability" in "responsibility". So, independence is next in line :-)
I was surprised when I got to the UK to discover that "dependant" (both adjective and noun) is in common, even government, use here - it's regarded as just wrong in Australia. But I've never seen "independant" in official use, and "dependent" remains correct (more correct I think personally).
The Canadian Income Tax Act uses both "dependent" and "dependant" to distinguish between the adjective and noun.
Ec
Florence Devouard wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 01/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Second draft, taking into account many comments offered (thanks !)
What do you think ?
Great. The "Freedom" one is much stronger now.
Also I assume a spellchecker would run over this sooner or later but "Independance" is bugging me a bit :) -> "Independence".
</pedant>
oh... hmmm During the past few weeks, I learned to transform my "responsability" in "responsibility". So, independence is next in line :-)
The gallic charm of these misspellings is perfectly excusable. Peut-être c'est une question d'accepter une certaine indépendance dans ses responsabilités. :-)
Ec
Florence Devouard wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Also I assume a spellchecker would run over this sooner or later but "Independance" is bugging me a bit :) -> "Independence".
</pedant>
oh... hmmm During the past few weeks, I learned to transform my "responsability" in "responsibility". So, independence is next in line :-)
No, please don't. We're passing up such a wonderful opportunity to finally solve the eternal British vs. American English debate - we should just submit all disputed spellings to the Académie française.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Also I assume a spellchecker would run over this sooner or later but "Independance" is bugging me a bit :) -> "Independence".
</pedant>
oh... hmmm During the past few weeks, I learned to transform my "responsability" in "responsibility". So, independence is next in line :-)
No, please don't. We're passing up such a wonderful opportunity to finally solve the eternal British vs. American English debate - we should just submit all disputed spellings to the Académie française.
--Michael Snow
Speaking of which...
It is open days for membership at Académie Française. 6 seats to replace, 2007 being a very tough year for our old folks.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2008/02/06/03004-20080206ARTFIG00008-l-academ...
(cultural minute: the academy was created in 1635. There are 40 seats. A seat is replaced only after the death of its user. In a situation where people frequently die after 90, that means the membership is pretty old. 6 deaths in one year is bad karma...)
On Feb 6, 2008 10:22 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
(cultural minute: the academy was created in 1635. There are 40 seats. A seat is replaced only after the death of its user. In a situation where people frequently die after 90, that means the membership is pretty old. 6 deaths in one year is bad karma...)
;-)
Just to balance things, they should make sure all the 6 appointed academicians are preteens, or at the very least teenagers...
...taking their cue from our adminship.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Florence Devouard wrote:
Speaking of which... It is open days for membership at Académie Française. 6 seats to replace, 2007 being a very tough year for our old folks.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2008/02/06/03004-20080206ARTFIG00008-l-academ...
What can we do to promote your candidacy? The article does say that they need more women.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org