James Hare wrote:
For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication, because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.
Others have said it already, but since I'm the chair of the Communications Committee, I think it's appropriate for me to add my apology for the difficulties in communication between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community. It's clear that the level of communication is not adequate, and I share the frustration that I think many of us feel. Because of the scope of the problem, I think it's worthwhile to explore it at some length.
Part of the problem is a lack of resources, both human and technical, in the communications area as much as in any other. That sort of thing is, of course, exactly what this fundraiser is trying to address. As has been noted, we've barely managed sufficient communication to merely coordinate what we're going to do, let alone communicate those intentions more broadly. Although there has been some previous communication that produced disappointingly little discussion. The community seems much more inclined to give feedback when the Foundation does something as opposed to when it talks about planning things.
Some of that feedback is over the issue of advertising, with various attempts to draw lines in the silicon and declare them crossed or not crossed. Honestly, it reminds me greatly of a typical dispute over competing points of view on a Wikipedia talk page. It is not resolvable by simply insisting on a particular interpretation, and in the meantime the Foundation has to make decisions in order to continue operating. Wikimedia is committed to maintaining a neutral point of view, as is well known, and I believe that value has not been compromised in any material way. Perceptions are admittedly important too, but they do not always reflect reality, as anyone familiar with the media coverage of Wikipedia can tell you. What is advertising and whether we should have it are important considerations, and have been debated at length, but it's not a fundamental value in the same way that free content or neutrality are. Anyone who's convinced that our actual content has been compromised already by the recent decisions is welcome to try and demonstrate how that's the case.
A wise person once told me that basically all longstanding members of the community are outliers on certain issues. I know that it's true for me, and I'm sure that it's also true even of people closer to the center of Wikimedia, including Jimbo himself. There will always be some matter on which your personal viewpoint does not prevail, even though you think it's an important point and use your most persuasive arguments to get that across. In any group project that consists of more than just your ideological clones, this is something we have to deal with. Here we do share a few fundamental goals, and hope that people can put aside other agendas to work on them. If upon closer examination you find that you cannot adopt these goals, or that the path to them includes elements that you absolutely cannot live with, then we wish you well in your other endeavors.
Meanwhile, we have a number of communications needs, and some go beyond communicating just with the immediate community of Wikimedia projects. I'd like to mention some of those to remind people of the many tasks being handled, often unseen and unappreciated, and invite additional help. We have the general public to communicate with, for example through the volume of email Wikimedia receives, which many volunteers take turns responding to (some of you may know this as the OTRS system). This is frequently overloaded, especially in English, but through a valiant effort we actually cleaned out the backlog about a month ago. Of course, over the holidays the emails have built up again, and we need to renew the effort. Anyone willing to help with this for a few months, please contact UninvitedCompany, the chair of the OTRS subcommittee, or else the contact for your particular language. Good customer service skills are a key here.
Communicating with the project communities is also a challenge, because they are so widely distributed. There is no central place to reach everyone, and many differing expectations about what "affects" the community and how it should be notified. (I use quotes because everything affects the community, but notice doesn't seem to be expected every time we buy servers, as long as the site runs.) The solution is for the community to help spread the word about anything that might be of importance. Some people may be familiar with The Wikipedia Signpost on en.wikipedia, or the Kurier on de.wikipedia. These are community efforts to grow and build on, and more like them should be encouraged. I know the TIME honor is so last year, but "You" are the only way Wikimedia can ever communicate with its projects. Contributions like Walter's Wikizine or Improv's LSS are invaluable (and as we regret the latter's departure, thanks to BirgitteSB for committing to keep it going).
Returning to the public side, the Wikimedia Foundation gets a number of requests to provide speakers at various functions. Some want Jimbo, but he's not able to fill them all, and many of these requests would be happy with community representatives. A few of these may be large conferences that can offer to cover travel expenses, but often it's a smaller function simply hoping that someone local would be available to meet with them. We're looking for someone who can volunteer to coordinate public speaking assignments, both handling requests and organizing a pool of available speakers. If you're interested in doing this, please let me know (in the meantime, if people who have presented on Wikimedia subjects can update http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Presentations it would be appreciated).
--Michael Snow
2007/1/3, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net:
Part of the problem is a lack of resources, both human and technical, in the communications area as much as in any other. That sort of thing is, of course, exactly what this fundraiser is trying to address.
I'm sorry, 'cause of language differences maybe I've not understood: are you saying that "lack of resources" is one of the reasons why are we collecting money? This means, "people needs to be payed"? (I'm asking, 'cause I'm not sure, that's not an accusation) Cause if so, it seems to me a "standard excuse" ("jolly excuse", translating an italian phrase): everyone could say so, but this is not enough to explain how communication failed so much, in this and other occasions.
The community seems much more inclined to give feedback when the Foundation does something as opposed to when it talks about planning things.
This is a problem of communication, too. Community doesn't feel involved in planning things. Users are not asked their opinions. Moreover, when they express it anyway, they're answered in a bitter way. In the recent past, I remember a user answering to me and other italians "Communities doesn't matter. Funding does. Capisce?". How does this phrase should be interpreted? Let's think about a new user who's starting to communicate with the Foundation, and he's been answered in this way. Obviously, I don't think this is an isolated case. Community doesn't think its opinion is welcome. If community's opinion is welcome, then there's a problem of communication.
Wikimedia is committed to maintaining a neutral point of view, as is well known, and I believe that value has not been compromised in any material way.
There are many ways to compromise anything. Neutrality is strongly linked with independence. In this very case, neutrality is strongly linked with independence by any type of commercial reality (explicit or implied, as Virgin United). This mine opinion could be - maybe - a cultural heritage, 'cause is shared by other people inside the italian community, and - as far as I've seen - outside the italian community too. But - always thinking about cultural differences - this opinion seems not to be shared by the en: or the east communities.
What is advertising and whether we should have it are important considerations, and have been debated at length, but it's not a fundamental value in the same way that free content or neutrality are.
Let's return to the begin. How this phrase is going to demonstrate interest in community's opinon? "Advertising is not a fundamental value". Who did decide this? Lots of users think advertising is a fundamental value, indeed. If you say that, you seem no to respect other opinions. That's an important duty for the CommComm: *hearing*, *listening*, *considering*. As far as I've studied Communication is made by a sender and a reveicer, and they often interchange their roles.
Anyone who's convinced that our actual content has been compromised already by the recent decisions is welcome to try and demonstrate how that's the case.
I should not consider this question, 'cause I could make the same reflected: "Anyone who's convinced that our actual content has not been compromised already by the recent decisions is welcome to try and demonstrate how that's the case".
But simply, anyone (at least: anyone who made mediacommunication or psychology studies) is aware that noone is immune to influences. Both in a positive or a negative way, no matter. Moreover, communication's results are heavily influenced by perception.
Let's make an example. We have an academical audit. A man talks about the importance of sobriety in the political duties. First case scenario: the man is wearing an elegant suit, he's well cleaned, speaks calmly. Second case scenario: same content, but the man is wearing a jeans and a shirt, has a not-perfect-hairdo, speaks loudly and gesticulating.
They say perfectly the same things, with the same words. But in the first scenario, the man will be listened with more attention, and his communication is going to be more effective.
Same content, different perception.
Communicating with the project communities is also a challenge, because they are so widely distributed. There is no central place to reach everyone, and many differing expectations about what "affects" the community and how it should be notified. (I use quotes because everything affects the community, but notice doesn't seem to be expected every time we buy servers, as long as the site runs.) The solution is for the community to help spread the word about anything that might be of importance. Some people may be familiar with The Wikipedia Signpost on en.wikipedia, or the Kurier on de.wikipedia. These are community efforts to grow and build on, and more like them should be encouraged. I know the TIME honor is so last year, but "You" are the only way Wikimedia can ever communicate with its projects. Contributions like Walter's Wikizine or Improv's LSS are invaluable (and as we regret the latter's departure, thanks to BirgitteSB for committing to keep it going).
And here we are at the end of this mail. Personally, I'm a bit saddened. This email is titled "Communication issues" but doesn't seem to talk that much about communication (it talks more about how people should not complain about advertising).
We *must* discuss about our communication problems. And we must decide which is our "starting point" in this discussion. Personally: sorry to say this, but mine is "Communication Committee totally failed in internal communication". As far as I remember, I have no memories at all of reading a communication "signed" by the CommComm. Better: I have no memories at all of reading a communicaton about Foundation's issues or problem. (Apart from Wikizine, but that's not about Foundation)
Why has there not been a periodical mail/message/zine/whatever summarizing what's going the Foundation?
"This week/month the Foundation did..." "This week/month the Foundation talked about..." "Foundation told we have some problems with..."
This is an internal communication. This express the will to be transparent, to involve communities in what's going on, to inform about the problems etc etc. Periodical information is really, really important.
And I think we can start discuss about how to improve it.
Gatto Nero wrote:
We *must* discuss about our communication problems. And we must decide which is our "starting point" in this discussion.
Oh, a thought. Transcom had a hard time because there was no one really available to coordinate translations of site notice and to make sure translations went live on the website.
Aphaia, god bless her, was supposed to be offline at that time, and jd had said he would help. It so happened that Jd was not available either, and thank god, Aphaia came to help nevertheless.
I suggest that we need more back up on transcom. There is room for at least one more coordinator there.
Ant
Thank you for reminding our activities, Florence, and again (I am not tired to repeat it) my all gratitude would go to our fellow translators.
On 1/4/07, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Aphaia, god bless her, was supposed to be offline at that time, and jd had said he would help. It so happened that Jd was not available either, and thank god, Aphaia came to help nevertheless.
Fortunately I was available at that time. But it was genuine *of fortunes*. Yes, I am afraid no one was aware of how we have been in a tight rope - when I got a message about first matching donor notice from the office to ask me to coordinate translations, it was at *4:30 am* in my local time and just before four and a half hours. Occasionally I was vigilant at that time - perhaps God would have blessed us really - I got the mail from Brad just before going to bed and could contact other translators before diving into sheets. But I wouldn't be bored to repeat it was just a fortune which we shouldn't expect such come upon us again and again. We need to establish organizational system with which we can handle a good amount of tasks.
I suggest that we need more back up on transcom. There is room for at least one more coordinator there.
Definitely. I would rather say three - three in major timezone. I invite specially all TCPLs to consider to be more involved into this sphere. Including not yet publicly announced staff, Mido and Fruggo, in my opinion all of them deeply understand what is coordination of translators and communications between the local community and global. I repeat three additional coordinators we need to deal with our concerns properly. Our global activities requires an amount of manpower suitable for our tasks both daily and occasional.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org