I'm thinking similarly in terms of distributing tasks broadly among an
array of Wikimedia affiliates instead of concentrating so many of them in a
single entity. Recent events have highlighted the systemic problems that
happen when WMF takes a stance against its volunteer communities (such as
with VisualEditor and Superprotect) or has governance, management, or
integrity issues (as with the situations with James, Jimbo, and Arnnon).
Transitioning to a federated model of Wikimedia infrastructure and funding
may be tricky. I the long term I am thinking that a federated model would
increase the resilience of the ecosystem as a whole because the systemic
risk from a problem in any one affiliate would be much lower than the risks
that we have with so much centralization in a single organization,
particularly when I personally feel that its WMF Board is misaligned with
the values of the movement that it was intended so support.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:21 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
ha, i read the thread and i did not notice the core
question :) lets
start from the annual plan then:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
there are 280 persons working for the WMF, all departments are
growing. money given to somebody else is shrinking below 10%. the word
"fun" is mentioned zero time, and innovation gets one important
sentence:
"We will create spaces for future community-led innovations and new
knowledge creation."
and after that innovation is mentioned in the *legal* and
*communications* paragraph. but - there is no money attached to it.
except maybe paying employees.
one could strive to allocate money differently, in the line of "30%
goes into grants to improve or develop new technology". making sure
that the innovation money is going to all regions of this planet
should be self evident. or one could clearly define that community
money is spent through local organisations, not central. one could
also suppose community money goes to members of the community, not
employees taking care about the community. this btw is also a major
fundraising problem - people have no problem to give money to
community members. but they have a problem if such money is spent on
employees.
to play the devils advocate, this increasing money spent not within
the WMF from <10% to 50% means, in reverse, WMF needs to shrink from
280 persons to 180 persons. one could even advocate for an upper limit
of 200 persons for central functions no matter of the income. as food
for thought, FIFA has a staff of 300. there are 250 million people
playing association football worldwide.
best,
rupert
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
wrote:
Potato potato - availability can be interpreted
in many different ways.
Thanks to the free license, we've covered a big part of that by design.
What activities the WMF should be doing wasn't quite the core of the
discussion though, but rather how big the WMF should be.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Tim Landscheidt <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de>
wrote:
> (anonymous) wrote:
>
> > […]
>
> > But 'getting big' is maybe not the most important thing in the world.
> > Working on our mission, is. And part of that, is security. The WMF is
not
> > in this world to play the odds, but
rather to ensure that knowledge is
> > freed, and stays free - most specifically by securing Wikipedia's
> continued
> > availability (at least, that is what our deck of cards looks like
now).
>
> > Fully focussing on one sigle stream of money may indeed allow you to
get
more out of it. But the question here is rather, how
to you tackle the
situation when that stream dries up? And for that question,
diversification
is actually key.
[…]
I don't agree with that. From the Library of Alexandria to
the Duchess Anna Amalia Library it has always been a mistake
to keep knowledge in one place and try really hard to keep
it from falling apart. The biggest advancement in that
field probably came from Gutenberg's press which allowed
knowledge to be spread around and resist attempts of censor-
ship.
When cinema and television came along, the ancient pattern
repeated: Cultural goods are lost today because the broad-
casters put them in one vault and then did not maintain the
fire alarm properly.
We have the same issue now with streaming services: During
dictatorships, you could hide books and jazz records. Net-
flix or YouTube just stops serving videos some entity does
not like, and Amazon can wipe your Kindle clean of anything.
So the diversification for the purpose of the advancement of
knowledge should not lie in making WMF immortal, but ensur-
ing that it survives WMF's death.
Tim
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>