Well is there sufficent support for a Declaration that the Community wants governance?
----- Original Message ---- From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:51:02 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
By that logic, the Foundation could not hold Board elections, discuss on the mailing lists, or conduct the fundraiser, as it involves being "involved in the community." This is different from being involved in the editorial model of Wikipedia, which they are not.
-Chad
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
The community creates content. If the Foundation is involved in the community, they are indirectly involved in content.
----- Original Message ---- From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:23:05 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
Incorrect. If the Foundation get involved in /content/. There's a distinct difference between not being involved in content and not being involved in the community.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote: > If the foundation gets involved in community issues, they aren't an ISP under Section 230 > > > >
----- Original Message ----
> From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 12:47:18 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly > > > On 12/05/2008, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote: > > Meta is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. If the remit is increased, Section 230 immunity goes to the birds. > > Meta is a website run by the WMF. Section 230 is specifically about > making people that run websites not be liable for the actions of their > users. You're not making any sense... > > _______________________________________________ >
foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > >
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > _______________________________________________ > >
foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ _______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
2008/5/13 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
Well is there sufficent support for a Declaration that the Community wants governance?
Defining what "governance" is would be a start, and what extent it needs to go to, and to what extent it's happening already, before we can claim the community wants anything!
The original proposal here, as Thomas pointed out, seems to be that we will have some kind of deliberative body, made up of anyone who cares enough to come along and discuss things, and it will break down into self-collecting groups made up of people interested in specific things, and these groups will attempt to gain consensus.
But! The current community governance is basically "a bunch of people - anyone who cares, really - start arguing about the particular bits they're interested in, in a hundred little groups and knots, but because we want to gain consensus, we never decide anything on a general scale".
The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time...
2008/5/13 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time...
I omitted to include a conclusion here. Ooops.
What we need to do is to actually figure out what governing *needs* done - what issues aren't getting decided now that need thrashed out? - and then work out why it is our existing structures don't let us do that.
Simply arguing over which new theoretical structure we should install on top of what we already have is doomed to failure, because we're arguing in a vacuum...
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/13 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time...
I omitted to include a conclusion here. Ooops.
What we need to do is to actually figure out what governing *needs* done - what issues aren't getting decided now that need thrashed out?
- and then work out why it is our existing structures don't let us do
that.
Simply arguing over which new theoretical structure we should install on top of what we already have is doomed to failure, because we're arguing in a vacuum...
The greatest needs for governance would in my opinion would be developing policy for new languages and new projects (or, possibly, merging projects).
Thanks, Pharos
As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't come out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects (note: this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). When we launch a new language, it is fairly trivial to add a new subdomain, launch a new instance of the software, and run. However, when a new project (ie: Wikinews, Wikispecies) is launched, the Board must remain involved. This is due to fiduciary responsibilities (purchasing of the new domain name) and brand responsibilities (new trademark to handle).
-Chad
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/13 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time...
I omitted to include a conclusion here. Ooops.
What we need to do is to actually figure out what governing *needs* done - what issues aren't getting decided now that need thrashed out?
- and then work out why it is our existing structures don't let us do
that.
Simply arguing over which new theoretical structure we should install on top of what we already have is doomed to failure, because we're arguing in a vacuum...
The greatest needs for governance would in my opinion would be developing policy for new languages and new projects (or, possibly, merging projects).
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't come out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects (note: this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). When we launch a new language, it is fairly trivial to add a new subdomain, launch a new instance of the software, and run. However, when a new project (ie: Wikinews, Wikispecies) is launched, the Board must remain involved. This is due to fiduciary responsibilities (purchasing of the new domain name) and brand responsibilities (new trademark to handle).
-Chad
Of course, the Board must be involved in new projects. That doesn't mean, though, that there' isn't room for a greater community role in this process.
Thanks, Pharos
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/13 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time...
I omitted to include a conclusion here. Ooops.
What we need to do is to actually figure out what governing *needs* done - what issues aren't getting decided now that need thrashed out?
- and then work out why it is our existing structures don't let us do
that.
Simply arguing over which new theoretical structure we should install on top of what we already have is doomed to failure, because we're arguing in a vacuum...
The greatest needs for governance would in my opinion would be developing policy for new languages and new projects (or, possibly, merging projects).
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/5/14 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't come out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects (note: this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). [...]
More to the point, it'd be overkill to do it any other way
We create new projects very rarely - let's look at the past list.
2001 - Wikipedia 2002 - Wiktionary 2003 - Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource 2004 - *Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews 2005 - [nothing] 2006 - Wikiversity 2007 - [nothing] 2008 - [nothing so far]
That's a total of nine projects (omitting incubator and meta, as not really standalone projects) - and of those nine, only *one* was founded in the last three and a half years.
Because we draw the definitions of our projects so widely, it is generally fairly unlikely that a lot more will come along that we want to do, and which we can't subsume into an existing project - it's unlikely we'll create a Wikirecipies or a Wikilaw or what have you - and so whilst I certainly don't rule out there being more, I don't imagine we'll see many of them.
Why develop a lot of policy, a lot of structure and committees and so on, for something that's likely to only be meaningful once every five years or so? We can handle it by the traditional methods - a bunch of enthusiasts get together, make a case, get more people, take it to the Board - if and when it becomes necessary.
It may not be efficient or ideologically tidy, but it certainly beats wasting our time creating a committee that never does anything :-)
Part of the reason to keep it as it is:
A) It happens so rarely, a committee is hardly called for, and B) The Board needs to be involved anyway.
Thus, community debate followed by Board approval is the best method. It's worked thus far, and I would say it can continue to work.
-Chad
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/14 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't come out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects (note: this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). [...]
More to the point, it'd be overkill to do it any other way
We create new projects very rarely - let's look at the past list.
2001 - Wikipedia 2002 - Wiktionary 2003 - Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource 2004 - *Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews 2005 - [nothing] 2006 - Wikiversity 2007 - [nothing] 2008 - [nothing so far]
That's a total of nine projects (omitting incubator and meta, as not really standalone projects) - and of those nine, only *one* was founded in the last three and a half years.
Because we draw the definitions of our projects so widely, it is generally fairly unlikely that a lot more will come along that we want to do, and which we can't subsume into an existing project - it's unlikely we'll create a Wikirecipies or a Wikilaw or what have you - and so whilst I certainly don't rule out there being more, I don't imagine we'll see many of them.
Why develop a lot of policy, a lot of structure and committees and so on, for something that's likely to only be meaningful once every five years or so? We can handle it by the traditional methods - a bunch of enthusiasts get together, make a case, get more people, take it to the Board - if and when it becomes necessary.
It may not be efficient or ideologically tidy, but it certainly beats wasting our time creating a committee that never does anything :-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/14 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't come out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects (note: this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). [...]
More to the point, it'd be overkill to do it any other way
We create new projects very rarely - let's look at the past list.
2001 - Wikipedia 2002 - Wiktionary 2003 - Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource 2004 - *Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews 2005 - [nothing] 2006 - Wikiversity 2007 - [nothing] 2008 - [nothing so far]
That's a total of nine projects (omitting incubator and meta, as not really standalone projects) - and of those nine, only *one* was founded in the last three and a half years.
Isn't that a sign of stagnation?
There is no structured process for considering new proposals, nor even a way to archive proposals without community support.
And yet there remain categories of knowledge, and established genres of reference books in print, that are not yet represented in the Wikimedia projects. For example, an annotated bibliography of all subjects, or a 'dictionary of allusion' of subjects treated in cultural expression (a replacement for "in popular culture...").
But I would not think of proposing any such projects with the current non-system, where they stand little to no chance of actually being implemented.
Some new projects might well eventually be implemented as "subprojects", like Wikijunior on Wikibooks. Indeed, I'm personally of the opinion that some of our existing projects might benefit by being merged, and I feel this should be an issue for a community structure to consider as well.
Of course, Board approval would be required for new projects as well.
Thanks, Pharos
On 14/05/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
That's a total of nine projects (omitting incubator and meta, as not really standalone projects) - and of those nine, only *one* was founded in the last three and a half years.
Isn't that a sign of stagnation?
I'd say it's a sign of maturity. We have no intention of covering everything, and we already have ways of covering everything we want to. (We have to leave something for Wikia, after all, or how would Jimbo eat? ;))
Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that a sign of stagnation? [...] I'm personally of the opinion that some of our existing projects might benefit by being merged, and I feel this should be an issue for a community structure to consider as well.
Isn't that contradictory? You feel that creating few new projects (low growth) is a sign of stagnation, which the community assembly could correct by un-creating a few (negative growth)?
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that a sign of stagnation? [...] I'm personally of the opinion that some of our existing projects might benefit by being merged, and I feel this should be an issue for a community structure to consider as well.
Isn't that contradictory? You feel that creating few new projects (low growth) is a sign of stagnation, which the community assembly could correct by un-creating a few (negative growth)?
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
The growth that we need as a vibrant Wikimedia is the addition of new types of reference works to our collections. This is the growth that is stagnating.
Now, whether a proposal is eventually implemented as a new wiki, or as a defined "subproject" under an existing wiki (like Wikijunior on Wikibooks or Wikisaurus on Wiktionary), is a different issue. It should, in my opinion, ultimately be a pragmatic decision based on what can form a viable separate wiki. And a few of our existing projects perhaps do not have this type of independent viability.
Wikijunior and Wikisaurus, I believe, started as proposals on Meta too. And I believe Meta is the right place for these types of proposals, whether they are eventually implemented as new wikis, or as defined "subprojects" under existing wikis. And for discussion of the possible merging of existing wikis too. Not necessarily in a "community assembly", but certainly in some more developed community structure than we have now.
Thanks, Pharos
Pharos, I think that many such 'separate projects' do come into being on parent sites, sometimes with initial friction (with people saying that the new entries do not belong). I agree with your point that active merging as well as branching of projects is good - a sign of evolution and homeostasis.
Meta is a good place to discuss most things, but I don't know that meta is the /best/ place to propose something until one has a clear enough idea and enough effort being put into a fledgling project for it to be viable as something new, unless all existing projects disown the type of material in question.
SJ
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that a sign of stagnation? [...] I'm personally of the opinion that some of our existing projects might benefit by being merged, and I feel this should be an issue for a community structure to consider as well.
Isn't that contradictory? You feel that creating few new projects (low growth) is a sign of stagnation, which the community assembly could correct by un-creating a few (negative growth)?
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
The growth that we need as a vibrant Wikimedia is the addition of new types of reference works to our collections. This is the growth that is stagnating.
Now, whether a proposal is eventually implemented as a new wiki, or as a defined "subproject" under an existing wiki (like Wikijunior on Wikibooks or Wikisaurus on Wiktionary), is a different issue. It should, in my opinion, ultimately be a pragmatic decision based on what can form a viable separate wiki. And a few of our existing projects perhaps do not have this type of independent viability.
Wikijunior and Wikisaurus, I believe, started as proposals on Meta too. And I believe Meta is the right place for these types of proposals, whether they are eventually implemented as new wikis, or as defined "subprojects" under existing wikis. And for discussion of the possible merging of existing wikis too. Not necessarily in a "community assembly", but certainly in some more developed community structure than we have now.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We create new projects very rarely - let's look at the past list.
Pharos wrote:
Isn't that a sign of stagnation?
No, it is not. Within each of these nine projects, new encyclopedic articles, new news reports, new books, new quotations are created every day. As well as new categories of encyclopedic articles, new portals, new WikiProjects. Each of these is a "project" in its own right, managed over a long time by one or more individuals. But they don't need their own domain names and logotypes because they are able to fit within the structure of these nine projects.
A few proposals have been put forth, that don't fit, e.g. Wikicat and Wikidata, that noone succeeded to bring to reality so far. Some similar open content projects have developed outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, e.g. Wikitravel, WiktionaryZ/Omegawiki, Dbpedia (is this Wikidata?), OpenLibrary (is this Wikicat?), MusicBrainz (like Wikicat for music), and OpenStreetMap.
Nothing stops an interest group such as WikiProject Connecticut from working across Wikipedia + Wikisource + Wikiquote + Wikinews + Wikitravel + OpenStreetMap + MusicBrainz. This flexibility is an enourmous strength, compared to a structure where every new project or interest group would have to pass through a centralized approval bottleneck and stay within the Wikimedia Foundation.
But I would not think of proposing any such projects with the current non-system, where they stand little to no chance of actually being implemented.
If you have a really great idea for a new project, you can always start it on your own. Wikitravel did and OpenStreetMap did. I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation is stopping you. Some people prefer to complain about how WMF works instead of starting great projects. Are you among them? How should I know?
Instead of starting your annotated bibliography (which might be a good idea) as a new WMF project, perhaps you should start a subproject within OpenLibrary? Who knows if OpenLibrary might merge with WMF in the future.
The Wright brothers needed to design their own aircraft to fly less than a mile. I can fly thousands of miles without designing my own aircraft.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
No, it is not. Within each of these nine projects, new encyclopedic articles, new news reports, new books, new quotations are created every day. As well as new categories of encyclopedic articles, new portals, new WikiProjects. Each of these is a "project" in its own right, managed over a long time by one or more individuals. But they don't need their own domain names and logotypes because they are able to fit within the structure of these nine projects.
I agree with Lars here. The projects that we do have are all broad projects for certain "types" of material. Most projects that are proposed are limited to certain subjects, or certain idiosyncracies of intrapersonal interaction, or something else. Instead of lamenting the relative lack of new projects, we should be grateful that the projects we do have are sufficiently general and adaptive enough to support diverse materials.
I have seen very very few project proposals that couldn't fit in at one of the existing projects, and the remaining few are highly questionable in their merits anyway. New projects are only good if they do not significantly overlap with our existing projects, and if they expand our realm of possibility. I suspect that the potential for massive expansion that is not covered by our current projects is very small.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/14 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't
come
out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects
(note:
this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). [...]
More to the point, it'd be overkill to do it any other way
We create new projects very rarely - let's look at the past list.
2001 - Wikipedia 2002 - Wiktionary 2003 - Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource 2004 - *Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews 2005 - [nothing] 2006 - Wikiversity 2007 - [nothing] 2008 - [nothing so far]
You might add 2005 - Wikimania as a meatspace project. That seems to have worked out well.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point, it'd be overkill to do it any other way
We create new projects very rarely - let's look at the past list.
2001 - Wikipedia 2002 - Wiktionary 2003 - Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource 2004 - *Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews 2005 - [nothing] 2006 - Wikiversity 2007 - [nothing] 2008 - [nothing so far]
You might add 2005 - Wikimania as a meatspace project. That seems to have worked out well. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would lump Wikimania in with Meta, the Foundation wiki, and any other of the "organizational" wikis we have. They're not projects for producing content, as with the 'pedias, 'sources, etc; but are there in a supportive role.
-Chad
Hoi, Why choose exactly one of the few issues where we have a policy? A policy that does what it is designed to do? Why not choose the more thorny issues like how to collaborate between projects. How to deal with vandals who jump from one project to the next. How to improve the usability of Commons. How to help the small projects by mentoring their admins. How to determine the limits of the self determination that is largely there for all projects. How to deal with your freedom, when you want to limit the freedom of others. What are the values that we expect in our projects and how do you allow for the maturity of projects.. What lessons can be learned from policies that are markedly different from the ones you are familiar with..
I agree with Milos that there is sufficient that can be done. So get involved in the things that are not done yet. It is the best way to start because you do not start with confrontation. When there is a working body that has shown its value, we can talk about the start of new projects / languages as well.. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/13 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time...
I omitted to include a conclusion here. Ooops.
What we need to do is to actually figure out what governing *needs* done - what issues aren't getting decided now that need thrashed out?
- and then work out why it is our existing structures don't let us do
that.
Simply arguing over which new theoretical structure we should install on top of what we already have is doomed to failure, because we're arguing in a vacuum...
The greatest needs for governance would in my opinion would be developing policy for new languages and new projects (or, possibly, merging projects).
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org