2009/9/16 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
Putting aside the unnecessary bad faith and challenges to the foundation's integrity: I find this all exciting - planning for significant tech budget support, possible major sponsorships (I've always hoped we would one day find multiple sources for long-term in-kind support of servers and bandwidth), &c. I would simply like to see more open discussion of what our perfect-world tech dreams are, and how to pursue what sorts of sponsorships.
Thanks, Sam. I find the discussion of the last few days symptomatic of the problems we've begun to brainstorm about with regard to the signal/noise ratio, healthiness and openness of this particular forum. (And by openness I mean that a forum that is dominated by highly abrasive, high volume, low signal discussions is actually not very open.) I do want to revisit the post limit question as a possible answer, but let's do that separately.
The thread did surface some topics which are worth talking about, both in general and specific terms, and I'm taking the liberty to start a new thread to isolate some of those topics. For one thing, I think it's always good to revisit and iterate processes for defining priorities, and for achieving the highest impact in those identified areas.
Developing more sophisticated processes both for short-term and long-term planning has been precisely one of the key focus areas of the last year. Internally, we've begun experimenting with assessment spreadsheets and standardized project briefs, drawing from the expertise of project management experts as well as Sue's specific work in developing a very well thought-out prioritization system at the CBC. Publicly, we're engaged in the strategy planning process -- the associated Call for Proposals is a first attempt to conduct a large-scale assessment of potential priorities. (I hope that with future improvements to the ReaderFeedback extension we'll be able to generate more helpful reports based on that particular assessment.)
Ideally, the internal and public processes will converge sooner rather than later. For example, I posted a project brief that I developed internally through the strategy CfP: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Toolkit
I believe this one was submitted by Jennifer: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Management_practices_t...
And this one by Tim: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Directed_community_fundraising
The next phase of the strategy planning process, the deep-dive task forces, will be an interesting experiment in serious community-driven planning work, complemented by the research conducted with the help of our partners at The Bridgespan Group. All of this will become part of the institutional memory of the Wikimedia movement, and hopefully we'll continue to raise the bar in our thinking, planning, and collaboration.
- - -
Of course separately from setting priorities, there's the critical need to improve our ability to execute upon those priorities. This includes the further development of project pipelines, more systematic volunteer engagement, additional internal HR support, additional hiring of staff to address key capacity gaps, etc. I'm thrilled by how far we've come, and to be able to have supported, and continue to support, an unprecedented large-scale initiative like the usability project. I'm well-aware that there continue to be key priorities that we aren't executing as effectively as we could.
The first thing many partners, donors and friends say when they visit Wikimedia Foundation is how astonishing it is that an operation of this scale can function with so little funding and staff. The truth is that by any reasonable measure of efficiency and money-to-impact ratio, we're achieving wonderful things together, and that's easy to forget when looking at issues in isolation. (Yes, it would be wonderful to have the full-history dumps running ASAP. Hm, it would be nice to have the full-history dumps for some other top 50 content websites. Oh, right, they don't provide any.)
But I don't measure our success compared to other organizations. The most important question to me is whether we are continually raising the bar in what we're doing and how we do it. The most recent Wikimania was the most thoughtful and self-aware one I've ever attended, with deep, constructive conversations and very serious efforts of everyone involved to re-ignite and strengthen our movement. There are elements of groupthink, but also very systematic attempts to break out of it.
There are great opportunities today for anyone to become engaged in helping to shape the future of what we do, and to accomplish real change in the world as a result. Ultimately we all have to make a choice how we spend our time -- how we spend our lives -- but I hope we're creating a legacy that will fill us with pride and joy, and inspire others to do the same.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
with assessment spreadsheets and standardized project briefs
Do you have links for these?
Of course separately from setting priorities, there's the critical need to improve our ability to execute upon those priorities. This includes the further development of project pipelines, more systematic volunteer engagement, additional internal HR support, additional hiring of staff to address key capacity gaps, etc.
'Systematic volunteer engagement' sounds right but clinical. I should like to see investment in our voluntary supporters, contributors, and partners to address key capacity gaps.
It seems to me effective execution at scale involves actively acknowledging great work done by potential partners, and finding better ways to let them align efforts with ours on their own.
For instance, letting mediawiki users help fix or submit ideas/patches to MW through its interface; or submit/synch categories of content with a Wikimedia project.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Toolkit http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Management_practices_t...
Interesting proposals - but they say nothing about learning and teaching and sharing expertise. If you're not learning, why not move on? And if you are learning, how important are elaborate recognition rituals?
You go on to say that visitors to the Foundation are amazed that it is so small. And it is true - the Foundation does a tremendous number of things for its size.
But in my experience most people mean they are amazed that the /Projects/ could be run by such a small group. And the Projects are in fact run by thousands of people and groups with different responsibilities, talents, and tools. In addition to expanding the number of participants, we need to help this network learn all of the skills needed to sustain and enhance their work, from development to community organizing.
< I'm thrilled by how far we've come, and to be able to have supported
an unprecedented large-scale initiative like the usability project.
Yes, this is an excellent example.
Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the community?
SJ
On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the community?
Are you sure that's the best option? Playing devil's advocate, does doing something entirely internal provide the necessary "outside look" at the software that's important to finding out, for instance, what a potential new user thinks about the interface or redesigning functions with non-contributing readers in mind? I don't mean to intimate that we should use entirely external people for this, of course, as I'm a 4 year member of the community, but I think doing anything that's entirely from within the community brings its own unique set of challenges. You seem to imply that it's a settled case that we would WANT to do that, and I'm not sure it is.
Philippe
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the community?
Are you sure that's the best option?
We should be capable of such a thing as a community, in terms of knowledge, experience, and process. That does not mean there is no place for the outside input or guidance you devilishly advocate.
doing anything that's entirely from within the community brings its own unique set of challenges.
Yes.
That said, there are degrees of community nature. Many contractors we have worked with were already Wikipedians to a small degree.
Imagine that we succeed in helping every person in the world learn, and in engaging most of them to share what they know with others. Then we will be a global community with few boundaries. At which point you can ask: How much of a project requires engaging people who would not otherwise do it, and how much can we accomplish by coordinating those already gladly doing to such work?
An example that does not cross the community/outsider boundary: translating a given set of documents. Requesting translations can feel like pulling teeth, asking favors of people who would rather do something else. But every day there are ten times as many people enthusiastically handling translation requests to create or improve Wikipedia articles. This is a question of finding and directing existing interest, and sharing the underlying drive and vision for why it matters.
SJ
Samuel Klein wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the community?
Are you sure that's the best option?
We should be capable of such a thing as a community, in terms of knowledge, experience, and process. That does not mean there is no place for the outside input or guidance you devilishly advocate.
I think that Philippe's question is important. Renewal processes from within are often stuck in a community's own inertia, and an inability of most people to look upon those processes with any kind of detachment. Those who are comfortable with existing processes become ill at ease with the notion that they might have to change the way they do things. Inertia makes it most difficult to abandon the most outrageous aspects of requests for adminship. Those of us who recognize those outrages most clearly do so with the clarity of infrequent participants, and have little stomach or patience for the hand-to-hand combat that would be required to effect change.
doing anything that's entirely from within the community brings its own unique set of challenges.
Yes.
That said, there are degrees of community nature. Many contractors we have worked with were already Wikipedians to a small degree.
That's fine. "Small degree" allows a person some time to become familiar with the underlying philosophy and operational parameters, without the zealotry that often comes with "large degree".
Imagine that we succeed in helping every person in the world learn, and in engaging most of them to share what they know with others. Then we will be a global community with few boundaries. At which point you can ask: How much of a project requires engaging people who would not otherwise do it, and how much can we accomplish by coordinating those already gladly doing to such work?
I apologize in advance if I characterize this as starry-eyed idealism. There's even a very American element of believing "We have the best system in the world so why wouldn't everyone else want to adopt it." That builds resentment and antagonism among those who are not within the system. From the inside, it is difficult to see that we engage people just as much when we provide them with positive encouragement to work on a competing project. The problem with co-ordinating those already doing the work is that it encourages inertia. Headquarters evolve into creationist Wizards of Oz at the centre of the universe, and not because it is decreed by any intelligent design; it just evolves that way.
The wisdom of crowds is a statistical operation. Its fractal geometry succeeds because most people accidentally choose the right answer. At the same time it allows for statistically deviant results which run the gamut from great ideas to outright stupidities. This is in sharp contrast to the kind of rigidly syllogistic thinking that has dominated western thought since at least the time of Plato. Syllogistic thought fails to accommodate the power of the paradox.
An example that does not cross the community/outsider boundary: translating a given set of documents. Requesting translations can feel like pulling teeth, asking favors of people who would rather do something else. But every day there are ten times as many people enthusiastically handling translation requests to create or improve Wikipedia articles. This is a question of finding and directing existing interest, and sharing the underlying drive and vision for why it matters.
The community of translators is a validly defined sub-community with its own insiders and outsiders. Some will respond to established priorities for what needs translating; others will translate whatever they damn well please. If the pool of translators for a given language is big enough there is a high probability that everything that needs doing will be done. It is that last sentence with which I take issue because it ignores the influence of Murphy and the trickster. The people you are trying to direct or drive (or herd) are not sheep; they're cats. The vision that you propose to share is yours not theirs. This does not make your vision wrong; it's just not theirs. Sheep cannot build a Wikipedia; only cats can.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org