From my perspective, this is a bi-polar view of the
world. It does not fit
On 28 August 2014 11:45, ; ) <box(a)gmx.at> wrote:
here are some impressions that could be useful for further discussion
## MISCONCEPTIONS - SITUATION AFTER ESCALATING TO A GENERAL
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHAPTERS AND HQ
The Situation (this is feedback - think about it and find out if you
think it applies to you or not - no sense in dis/agreeing):
Misconceptions from WMF-side:
1. Editors: Those "volunteers" making a lot of edits and helping
out in the community are - even when they sometimes act like your
14-year old son or daughter - not children, customers or interns,
they are your BUSINESS-PARTNERS.
2. Users: Those using the information stored need other tools than
those editing, as there IS a discrepancy between those two groups.
Still, they are Users and not CUSTOMERS (the difference being that
users do have the possibility to participate).
3. Content: The information provided is not a product, it's a work of
love - this includes the form it is presented in. Accepting that
others mess with it, is hard enough, if the "procedures" are followed,
that are cumbersome for a reason - sidesteping controversy with
"super"powers is not a good idea - especially because it is tempting
(for me to... think of all the time saved by it) and will be used
more, if available (don't think you are better than the rest - if a
tool is established and works, you will use it more often - look it
4. Global Perception: You are not seen as the "leaders" or
"managers" - you are seen as the Tech-/Community-Support. If you
compare these two perceptions, a lot of criticism will get clearer. So
please once and for all state what you really are and what you are
not, which rights you reserve, where autonomy ends and so on (this
might hurt the movement short-term and lead to forks...).
5. Money: Donations are not for shiny new tools, they are - at least
under continental european law - bound to a purpose - which is to keep
the site up long term and only then - develop and hire. Don't
Misconceptions from Community:
1. WMF: No, the WMF is not a business - not really (this
from an Europe-centric perspective, where this attribute is not a
2. Money: No, the WMF is not misusing the money - they have just
grown to a certain number where there is some overhead. If we really
want to support this "business-model" might be open for discussion.
But they keep up the servers and even have enough left to pay over 100
3. Ownership: The WMF does not own the content nor the code. The only
thing they "own" under US law is a trademark. The validity of this
trademark in Europe is still undecided as there have not been any
cases clarifying this peculiar situation.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: