Dear all,
In my country, as well as in many countries (though not all), today is the first day of the new year. First of all, as is traditional, let me present my [[edit:wishes]] to all of you. I hope you will be in good health, will meet many successes, and will have fun in what you are doing.
Second, I would like to share with you my wikimedia-related-stuff wish list. I am pretty sure we will not all have the same, not even amongst board members, but here is my list anyway. As it is not a good idea to be too greedy, I limited myself to 10 wishes.
1. Quality 2. Promotion of lesser known projects 3. Software development 4. License, international laws and compatibility 5. Wikimania, reinventing the wheel, and civility 6. Wikicouncil 7. Chapters and general assembly 8. Board membership, election 9. financial sustainability, controls and independance 10. Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive authority
1. Quality Quality has two sides. First, content should actually be of quality (accuracy, completeness, up-to-date information, and ease of reading). And second, content should actually be perceived as of quality.
Several communities have made great efforts to improve quality, with for example rules such as the biographies of living people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). Some projects, such as the german wikipedia, have been recognized of better quality than a traditional very respectable german encyclopedia. (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/German_Wikipedia).
I hope that in the coming 2008 year, the Wikimedia Foundation will do its best to provide the technical tools (to identify quality versions), the public relations support (to communicate more efficiently on success stories and lessen PR crisis when they occur), better OTRS and legal support (to answer complains and legal threats), but also the leadership to make sure that more projects adopt rules leading to better quality (eg, living people biographies).
For now 2 years, since the Seigenthaler controversy, the english wikipedia has been in full gear toward better quality, and have received much support in that regard. It does not seem to me that other projects have received as much attention and support from the Foundation, and the size reached by several other languages, as well as the increasing number of legal requests in some of the biggest Wikipedia (such as french and german languages) suggest that it is high time to expand the focus beyond the traditional english territory. I also recognize that languages barriers and diversity of national laws are making this a big challenge, but it is in such challenges that we will prove really being an international organization.
2. Promotion of lesser known projects Whilst Wikipedia has probably reached the top of its fame in the press of many nations, and enjoys the largest communities, other wikimedia projects are being increasingly successful. Commons has now over 2.000.000 free objects and is a unique case of multilingual community-based project. The largest Wiktionary is not english speaking, but french-speaking, a unique situation in wikimedia project and probably a showcase for the francophony. Wikibooks now hosts several high quality books, and also receive as donations, books originally under regular copyright protection and released under a free license, again, showcases of the interest of the educational world for the free movement. I would like these projects to be shown more attention by the Foundation, including more promotion efforts in conferences, press release and promotional leaflets, more interest to their specific technical needs, and more representativity of their communities.
3. Software development I am pretty sure it is an evidence to anyone that our software development is much behind, not because of a lack of great ideas, but rather of human power. I would like to see this year a system implemented to collect technical wishlists from each project; outreach to developer open-source communities; a well-outlined technical roadmap, with goals, resources and deadlines. And yeah, results. It might be worth also seeing how the Foundation could help on the tool server side.
4. License, international laws and compatibility In the past year, new policy regarding media object has been implemented, but I still see many questions coming in from communities, which do not always know how to implement our policies with regards to different laws. It seems that often, the answer proposed is "as long as it fits the american law, all is fine". I do not consider that a valid answer, unless we are trying to build a freely-licensed content for american citizens. My wish would be that these communities receive clear and constructive answers, in a timely fashion.
Very recently, the board took some steps making it possible to migrate in the future to a CC license, in order to improve compatibility with other freely-licenses works as well as to facilitate re-use of our content. I hope this evolution will happen along with our longstanding traditions of strong community input and control over major decisions affecting the projects.
5. Wikimania, reinventing the wheel, and civility Next summer, Wikimania, our annual conference will take place in Egypt, at Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Bibliotheca Alexandrina was inaugurated in 2002 to recapture the spirit of the ancient Library of Alexandria, one of the oldest libraries of the world. The new Library and its affiliated research centers are devoted to using the newest technology to preserve the past and to promote access to the products of the human intellect. Choosing that place provides us with fabulous opportunities to increase awareness in the region about Wikipedia, its sister projects and the libre knowledge movement, but also to anchor our projects, based on very modern technologies, with ancient spirit of wisdom and traditional knowledge.
I would be quite amazed if this could not be a very neat PR opportunity and could not be in particular sponsored by governments, non profit educational organizations and big international organizations. In 2007, a lot of work has been provided for WMF to be recognized as a charity, and for WMF to be involved in various decision-making circles for global education. I hope WMF will be able to take benefit of this recognition.
Regarding participation and program, my wish would be that WMF makes real efforts to fund participation of many of our core participants, and use this opportunity to make "transmission of experience", and discussion and improvement of "civility" on the projects, a major part of Wikimania program. In the past year, I remember a very interesting workshop on this topic in Wikimania Taipei, several projects suffer from limited civility, in particular toward newcomers, and several of our members suffer cyberstalking in 2007. This is unacceptable. We must take the time to think about wikilove, and work to improve relationships between participants. Arguably, our projects are an example of peace making process (seriously :-)).
6. Wikicouncil I would like the Wikicouncil idea to be revived and implemented. For past discussion, please have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil. The Wikimedia Global Council would be a body of representatives for all projects who could serve alongside the elected members of the Board. Our projects are now far too big to easily permit circulation of information between community and organization. My belief is that we need an intermediary body. Please join the discussion.
7. Chapters and general assembly The relationship between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation has improved over the past year. There are now guidelines for creation, some chapters have received the permission to use trademarks within certain limits, several chapters were created etc....
However, it is still not sufficient. My wishlist is that further work be done to clarify relationships and lines of authority, and that a meeting be held annually with the chapters. I had hoped this assembly would occur in winter 2007, but this was delayed. I would like the board to agree to a meeting with wmf and chapters in spring 2008.
8. Board membership, election The board recently lost two members, Michael and Erik, who need to be replaced. The board also agreed to an expansion of the board, up to 11 members. However, to be transparent on this topic, there is strong disagreement on the board about what the board should be in the future.
Some members consider that the priority is that the board stays primarily a body representing the community, so that the community stays in control of the projects future. Missing skills would be then completed by senior staff members, many of which have recently joined the team and more senior staff being expected. Professionalization of the Foundation would mostly concern the staff, but not so much the board, who would have in turn to heavily rely on staff.
Other members argue that most community members lack the proper skills to be good members of a non profit organization the size and importance of Wikimedia Foundation, and lack the experience of american non-profits. They wish that the board professionalize as well. This would mean cutting down pretty severely in the number of community members, in particular elected, and would mean the arrival of various american big shots in replacement. In the same vein, these members argue that officers of WMF (chair and treasurer in particular) should not be community members, but rather individuals experienced in various skills (finances, legal, fundraising, management etc...), but also seasonned experts to deal with the high level companies and individuals we are now facing (as potential partners or competitors).
Needless to say, these two visions of the future are not totally compatible, and both visions hold a certain truth, which makes it doubly difficult to deal with.
One thing is certain, the past is well behind us, and the time when we could quietly grow is over. Key questions are "which view will dominate" and "how much does the community want to be involved in that decision".
I stand noisily and strongly in the first view, as I believe in 1) an editing community in control of the projects they are creating 2) a need for independence, which excludes adding to the board many outsiders, tied by multiple conflict of interests 3) building an international organization, which seems incompatible with adding many outsiders all coming from the same nation (not to say the same city).
The risks of that position is that limited skills on the board might make us easy preys and might make us easily fall in legal or financial pits. We might also exhaust the professional team ;-)
Switching to a more professional board, with professional officers might make us stronger and might reveal a good idea in the long run. Risks are mostly loss of control and loss of independence. Another aspect is that the current board is willing to give a lot of its volunteer time. As our quest for a treasurer has shown, most professionals will either only accept to join against a stipend, or will mostly rely on the staff, merely becoming rubber stampers.
What should really be my wish list on this point ? I am not quite sure, but I think my wish list would probably be that we take time through each of the steps of our evolution. Professionalizing the staff means most of the staff is brand new and have to be introduced to our projects. Switching to a professional board means most of the board is also brand new and many have to be introduced to our projects. Doing both changes in a matter of couple of months, strikes me as more than unsuitable. It is "dangerous". My wish list would be that revolution be achieved in at least a year. As such, I would like that the board is expanded including mostly community members, as an interim board if necessary, and the brutal professionalization currently proposed be delayed until the end of the year.
9. Financial sustainability, controls and independence By now, it should be obvious to everyone that the audit of our previous fiscal year is taking more time than we would hope for, but it is all in audit firm hands now. Last fiscal year was difficult both because of the amazing growth of our projects, our limited revenue not making it possible to hire all the necessary staff at first, followed by high staff turn-over in spring 07. However, as the organization matures, the Wikimedia Foundation has begun implementing more necessary policies and procedures, considered normal practices for any healthy organization. The hiring of Sue Gardner, executive director, and Mike Godwin, our general counsel, has played a central role in ensuring that these new checks and balances are implemented properly. Sue also brought in Mona Venkateswaran, a former auditor and a CA, to assess Wikimedia's internal financial controls and systems, and recommend improvements. In summary, the Foundation has enacted many new controls, employee processes and procedures, and accountability systems. A first wish will naturally be that we keep on improving :-), that audit next year be done in a couple of weeks and detailed budget be voted before next summer.
My second wish is related to financial sustainability and independence. I would like that no decisions be taken on the paths to follow to achieve sustainability, without the involvement of the board and of the community.
10. Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive authority
Last wish is actually clearly related to several points listed above, but I chose to mention it as a goal again, to insist on its importance.
In fall 2006, the board chose me as chair, in a courageous move to evolve from a foundator based organization, to a more mature, group-led organization. At that time, the organization had only a couple of staff members. No real formal policies or procedures. Less than one board meeting a year. No agendas etc... I believe I helped the organization grow to the next step, which is just in front of us: moving from a group-led micro organization with a working board, to an organization with clear delineation between staff and board. I hope that the coming year will show a smooth and successful transition to our new professsional organization, where roles and responsibilities of all parties, board, staff and community, will be better understood and acknowledged, for the benefit of our project, in a shared vision.
In wikilove
Anthere/Florence
first off, I think this is a great email, and touches on a number of points that I hold in high regard as well.
- Promotion of lesser known projects
... I would like these projects to be shown more attention by the Foundation, including more promotion efforts in conferences, press release and promotional leaflets, more interest to their specific technical needs, and more representativity of their communities.
YES! This is exactly what I want, and what I assume many members of the sister projects want as well. We know that we aren't of the same stature of Wikipedia, but we are doing some pretty impressive things in our own right and could use the occasional helping hand.
- Software development
I am pretty sure it is an evidence to anyone that our software development is much behind, not because of a lack of great ideas, but rather of human power.
I may be in the minority around here (judging from the grumbling that I hear), but I am pretty convinced that our developers are doing an excellent job. We have been getting regular software updates, including interface improvements, features, extensions, etc. Small bugs are fixed pretty rapidly (if they merit it). I know some people are still waiting for SUL or FlaggedRevs, but those are big projects and all good things take time. If we had 20 more developers, I still wouldn't want to rush those projects.
- Wikicouncil
I would like the Wikicouncil idea to be revived and implemented. For past discussion, please have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil. The Wikimedia Global Council would be a body of representatives for all projects who could serve alongside the elected members of the Board.
This is another big issue, related to #2 above. Giving people representation and a voice in the dealings of the WMF, even if it's just nominal, is going to go a long way in the promotion of unity among our various projects and languages.
- Chapters and general assembly
The relationship between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation has improved over the past year. There are now guidelines for creation, some chapters have received the permission to use trademarks within certain limits, several chapters were created etc....
However, it is still not sufficient. My wishlist is that further work be done to clarify relationships and lines of authority, and that a meeting be held annually with the chapters. I had hoped this assembly would occur in winter 2007, but this was delayed. I would like the board to agree to a meeting with wmf and chapters in spring 2008.
I'm certainly not speaking on behalf of the chapcom here, but for what it's worth I think this is a great idea and should become a staple of our annual business. Keeping in contact with the chapters should happen regularly.
- Board membership, election
..
- an editing community in control of the projects they are creating
- a need for independence, which excludes adding to the board many
outsiders, tied by multiple conflict of interests 3) building an international organization, which seems incompatible with adding many outsiders all coming from the same nation (not to say the same city).
The community needs to have input, and significant input at that. If the board is not from the community, then we need to push harder for the wikicouncil to be established and to be given a large share of "power". I'm not interested in handing over all our hard work to a group of people who aren't invested in us, and don't "get it". If we have to suffer a little bit and make mistakes to keep our projects on the right path and to ensure our values are kept safe, then that's what we need to do. Of course, there is enough to say on this point that it should get it's own thread (and possibly several threads). Maybe at the next board election, we could include a referendum about this, and see what the community things about it.
- Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive
authority
Last wish is actually clearly related to several points listed above, but I chose to mention it as a goal again, to insist on its importance.
This is important, and a source of so much confusion over the years. How EXACTLY do the projects and the board interact with one another? En.Wikibooks has had problems in communicating with the board in the past, and as a result a number of important initiatives (such as publishing our books, etc) have been stalled indefinitely. When we have a question or a request, it doesnt seem like there is any good place to turn. Maybe the board needs it's equivalent of a "bugzilla" where we can post questions/comments/requests to the board to be dealt with in an organized manner. We could call it "boardzilla" :).
--Andrew Whitworth
On Jan 1, 2008 8:20 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
first off, I think this is a great email, and touches on a number of points that I hold in high regard as well.
not only an e-mail, but also a "chair letter" for the corporate site: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/2/08, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
<in response to Florence Devouards wishlisht>
- Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive
authority
Last wish is actually clearly related to several points listed above, but I chose to mention it as a goal again, to insist on its importance.
This is important, and a source of so much confusion over the years. How EXACTLY do the projects and the board interact with one another? En.Wikibooks has had problems in communicating with the board in the past, and as a result a number of important initiatives (such as publishing our books, etc) have been stalled indefinitely. When we have a question or a request, it doesnt seem like there is any good place to turn. Maybe the board needs it's equivalent of a "bugzilla" where we can post questions/comments/requests to the board to be dealt with in an organized manner. We could call it "boardzilla" :).
Is this still the case?
Doesn't the following announcement mean that there is very much *going* to be a big project to publish books (link below)?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikis_Go_Printable
I confess I am still waiting for clarification on how precisely the partnership with PediaPress will be structured; but I am not in a hurry, never will be.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 1/2/08, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I may be in the minority around here (judging from the grumbling that I hear), but I am pretty convinced that our developers are doing an excellent job. We have been getting regular software updates, including interface improvements, features, extensions, etc. Small bugs are fixed pretty rapidly (if they merit it). I know some people are still waiting for SUL or FlaggedRevs, but those are big projects and all good things take time. If we had 20 more developers, I still wouldn't want to rush those projects.
I woudln't lose hope over Unified Login. Just a handful of days ago, we have begun to in fact translate the userinterface messages for unifying ones login at:
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Main_Page
So there is at least some movement on that front, otherwise why bother with translating those. I would bet the people at Betawiki/translatewiki wouldn't mind if more people pitched in with translations of those new interface messages; there is a bunch of new ones there.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 02/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
- Promotion of lesser known projects
I would like these projects to be shown more attention by the Foundation, including more promotion efforts in conferences, press release and promotional leaflets, more interest to their specific technical needs, and more representativity of their communities.
YES! This is exactly what I want, and what I assume many members of the sister projects want as well. We know that we aren't of the same stature of Wikipedia, but we are doing some pretty impressive things in our own right and could use the occasional helping hand.
When interesting or press-worthy stuff happens, let the comcom know - can't send press releases for stuff they don't know about.
(We should be putting out at least one general feel-good press release a week IMO.)
- d.
Florence, this is a fantastic list, thankyou for writing it. I don't know what has prompted your recent series of thought-provoking posts to foundation-l but I am certainly grateful it has happened. :) I would be interested to read any similar lists by other board members or interested staff as well.
On 02/01/2008, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
- Promotion of lesser known projects
Whilst Wikipedia has probably reached the top of its fame in the press of many nations, and enjoys the largest communities, other wikimedia projects are being increasingly successful. Commons has now over 2.000.000 free objects and is a unique case of multilingual community-based project. The largest Wiktionary is not english speaking, but french-speaking, a unique situation in wikimedia project and probably a showcase for the francophony. Wikibooks now hosts several high quality books, and also receive as donations, books originally under regular copyright protection and released under a free license, again, showcases of the interest of the educational world for the free movement. I would like these projects to be shown more attention by the Foundation, including more promotion efforts in conferences, press release and promotional leaflets, more interest to their specific technical needs, and more representativity of their communities.
I am really happy to hear this. :) Mostly about the Foundation being more responsive to their needs.
- Software development
I am pretty sure it is an evidence to anyone that our software development is much behind, not because of a lack of great ideas, but rather of human power. I would like to see this year a system implemented to collect technical wishlists from each project; outreach to developer open-source communities; a well-outlined technical roadmap, with goals, resources and deadlines. And yeah, results. It might be worth also seeing how the Foundation could help on the tool server side.
This is the best news I have read all week! Really, really fantastic. No one has any complaints about the work our devs currently do, the only problem is the volume (or lack of it).
I would also like to see a dedicated MediaWiki development fund that people could choose to donate into rather than a general WMF fund. It is strange how entwined WMF/MW are when MW is extensively used outside WMF and WMF has no special dedication to only using MW. There are many large companies and businesses that use MW. It seems to me a lost opportunity if we don't give them the chance to donate to MW if they are not prepared to donate to WMF-all funds.
Using software that doesn't receive substantial ongoing improvement is, in the long term, potentially just as dangerous as some dramatic unwelcome act (like placing advertisements). While in the latter case the damage and loss would be fast, in the former, people and enthusiasm just slowly wear away... like rot.
- License, international laws and compatibility
In the past year, new policy regarding media object has been implemented, but I still see many questions coming in from communities, which do not always know how to implement our policies with regards to different laws. It seems that often, the answer proposed is "as long as it fits the american law, all is fine". I do not consider that a valid answer, unless we are trying to build a freely-licensed content for american citizens. My wish would be that these communities receive clear and constructive answers, in a timely fashion.
Yes, in the past there have been calls for legal advice on some issue or another from the Foundation and to date they have always been denied. There is a lot of uncertainty.
- Chapters and general assembly
The relationship between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation has improved over the past year. There are now guidelines for creation, some chapters have received the permission to use trademarks within certain limits, several chapters were created etc....
However, it is still not sufficient. My wishlist is that further work be done to clarify relationships and lines of authority, and that a meeting be held annually with the chapters. I had hoped this assembly would occur in winter 2007, but this was delayed. I would like the board to agree to a meeting with wmf and chapters in spring 2008.
I had an idea that there was going to be some sort of consultation thing with the chapters (and potential chapters) about what they saw as their role and relationship to WMF? Did that happen or is it still planned?
- Financial sustainability, controls and independence
[...]
My second wish is related to financial sustainability and independence. I would like that no decisions be taken on the paths to follow to achieve sustainability, without the involvement of the board and of the community.
"The community" in some ways has very limited vision. I wonder if we are able to make tough decisions when they are called for, or if we would rather cling to our ideals while nonetheless the ship sinks. Win the battle but lose the war.
Thankyou again Florence for this mail. Think where we were in Jan 2007; so far away now. I remember the search for an ED seemed rather hopeless. :) Imagine where we may be in Jan 2009...
regards, Brianna
- Software development
I am pretty sure it is an evidence to anyone that our software development is much behind, not because of a lack of great ideas, but rather of human power. I would like to see this year a system implemented to collect technical wishlists from each project; outreach to developer open-source communities; a well-outlined technical roadmap, with goals, resources and deadlines. And yeah, results. It might be worth also seeing how the Foundation could help on the tool server side.
This is the best news I have read all week! Really, really fantastic. No one has any complaints about the work our devs currently do, the only problem is the volume (or lack of it).
I would also like to see a dedicated MediaWiki development fund that people could choose to donate into rather than a general WMF fund. It is strange how entwined WMF/MW are when MW is extensively used outside WMF and WMF has no special dedication to only using MW. There are many large companies and businesses that use MW. It seems to me a lost opportunity if we don't give them the chance to donate to MW if they are not prepared to donate to WMF-all funds.
Using software that doesn't receive substantial ongoing improvement is, in the long term, potentially just as dangerous as some dramatic unwelcome act (like placing advertisements). While in the latter case the damage and loss would be fast, in the former, people and enthusiasm just slowly wear away... like rot.
Good idea. Are you thinking though, to a fund handled by Wikimedia Foundation, or by another organization ? 'cause if funds are given to develop features on MW that are of no special interest to wikimedia projects, it might conflict with our mission. Other than that, I certainly believe restricted donations are a good idea to consider in the future.
- Chapters and general assembly
The relationship between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation has improved over the past year. There are now guidelines for creation, some chapters have received the permission to use trademarks within certain limits, several chapters were created etc....
However, it is still not sufficient. My wishlist is that further work be done to clarify relationships and lines of authority, and that a meeting be held annually with the chapters. I had hoped this assembly would occur in winter 2007, but this was delayed. I would like the board to agree to a meeting with wmf and chapters in spring 2008.
I had an idea that there was going to be some sort of consultation thing with the chapters (and potential chapters) about what they saw as their role and relationship to WMF? Did that happen or is it still planned?
The form has been finalized and handed out to the chapters. All chapters have answered. Pat did a great job to aggregate results. Results have been looked at by Sue, Delphine, Frieda, JB, Arne, et al in early december, in Frankfurt. I am not sure if aggregated results have been posted yet, but at least some of the raw forms are on internal. No precise steps have been formulated yet in answer to the consultation. I expect it needs to be part of the action plan to be formulated for february.
Thanks Brianna
Ant
Thanks for this.
1. People trust de.wiki because, well, the Germans are Germans, and, more importantly, they have stable versions. This means that quantity levels can be expanded safely. At enwiki's WikiProject Opera, we ruthlessly milked the Germans' fantastic series on Salieri's operas for our Salieri month.
2. Wonderful, but people should realise that WMF will either swim with the English Wikipedia, or will sink with it. No other project has half the name recognition. Which would make the enwiki community rejecting No.1 a bit of an issue.
3. Any problems here (which in turn impact on No.1) seem to stem from a lack of money, IMO. If WMF had the money to employ a full-time team of developers, which I don't believe it does, there wouldn't be an issue. Skipping 4...
5. Quick note on cyberstalking - happens everywhere, and its never going to happen. Moreover, its impact is overstated, and the correct response is NOT "Let's out the people who out us" - which often is, in actual fact, what happens. Skipping 6, only noting that idea has been kicking around for a while - I was vaguely curious why it was revived right at this moment? Also skip 7...
8. The most important thing to note here is that every time WMF has ballsed up, it's been due to a lack of professionalism. The same is also true of the various press-reported dramas on enwiki, now I think about it (not that that's at all relevant). It's not so important how it's done, but levels of general basic competence have to vastly increase. Probably also worth making the point that since this fundraiser shows the "milk the community" fundraising has its severe limits (and this is agrees with the literature I have read concerning professional fundraising), most of WMF's raised money is surely going to have to come from major private donors - wealthy individuals (as is usually the case). In terms of independence, this is surely something to worry about more than the possibility of a mostly-pro Board. The solution to this issue is surely discreet advertising - the subsequent cashflow would also provide enough money to solve most of the other problems, at least so I'd have thought. One thing is fairly sure - you will not find much professionalism at all in this ambiguous concept of "the community", and if you want things done right, by and large you have to pay for it. My personal view is that the community does not deserve to be running their own shop in the slightest, but I realise that is not a terribly popular point of view. Skip 9, ditto 10...
and Happy New Year to all!
CM
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:50:55 +0100 From: anthere@anthere.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org; fdevouard@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] My 10 wishes list for 2008
Dear all,
In my country, as well as in many countries (though not all), today is the first day of the new year. First of all, as is traditional, let me present my [[edit:wishes]] to all of you. I hope you will be in good health, will meet many successes, and will have fun in what you are doing.
Second, I would like to share with you my wikimedia-related-stuff wish list. I am pretty sure we will not all have the same, not even amongst board members, but here is my list anyway. As it is not a good idea to be too greedy, I limited myself to 10 wishes.
- Quality
- Promotion of lesser known projects
- Software development
- License, international laws and compatibility
- Wikimania, reinventing the wheel, and civility
- Wikicouncil
- Chapters and general assembly
- Board membership, election
- financial sustainability, controls and independance
- Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive
authority
- Quality
Quality has two sides. First, content should actually be of quality (accuracy, completeness, up-to-date information, and ease of reading). And second, content should actually be perceived as of quality.
Several communities have made great efforts to improve quality, with for example rules such as the biographies of living people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). Some projects, such as the german wikipedia, have been recognized of better quality than a traditional very respectable german encyclopedia. (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/German_Wikipedia).
I hope that in the coming 2008 year, the Wikimedia Foundation will do its best to provide the technical tools (to identify quality versions), the public relations support (to communicate more efficiently on success stories and lessen PR crisis when they occur), better OTRS and legal support (to answer complains and legal threats), but also the leadership to make sure that more projects adopt rules leading to better quality (eg, living people biographies).
For now 2 years, since the Seigenthaler controversy, the english wikipedia has been in full gear toward better quality, and have received much support in that regard. It does not seem to me that other projects have received as much attention and support from the Foundation, and the size reached by several other languages, as well as the increasing number of legal requests in some of the biggest Wikipedia (such as french and german languages) suggest that it is high time to expand the focus beyond the traditional english territory. I also recognize that languages barriers and diversity of national laws are making this a big challenge, but it is in such challenges that we will prove really being an international organization.
- Promotion of lesser known projects
Whilst Wikipedia has probably reached the top of its fame in the press of many nations, and enjoys the largest communities, other wikimedia projects are being increasingly successful. Commons has now over 2.000.000 free objects and is a unique case of multilingual community-based project. The largest Wiktionary is not english speaking, but french-speaking, a unique situation in wikimedia project and probably a showcase for the francophony. Wikibooks now hosts several high quality books, and also receive as donations, books originally under regular copyright protection and released under a free license, again, showcases of the interest of the educational world for the free movement. I would like these projects to be shown more attention by the Foundation, including more promotion efforts in conferences, press release and promotional leaflets, more interest to their specific technical needs, and more representativity of their communities.
- Software development
I am pretty sure it is an evidence to anyone that our software development is much behind, not because of a lack of great ideas, but rather of human power. I would like to see this year a system implemented to collect technical wishlists from each project; outreach to developer open-source communities; a well-outlined technical roadmap, with goals, resources and deadlines. And yeah, results. It might be worth also seeing how the Foundation could help on the tool server side.
- License, international laws and compatibility
In the past year, new policy regarding media object has been implemented, but I still see many questions coming in from communities, which do not always know how to implement our policies with regards to different laws. It seems that often, the answer proposed is "as long as it fits the american law, all is fine". I do not consider that a valid answer, unless we are trying to build a freely-licensed content for american citizens. My wish would be that these communities receive clear and constructive answers, in a timely fashion.
Very recently, the board took some steps making it possible to migrate in the future to a CC license, in order to improve compatibility with other freely-licenses works as well as to facilitate re-use of our content. I hope this evolution will happen along with our longstanding traditions of strong community input and control over major decisions affecting the projects.
- Wikimania, reinventing the wheel, and civility
Next summer, Wikimania, our annual conference will take place in Egypt, at Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Bibliotheca Alexandrina was inaugurated in 2002 to recapture the spirit of the ancient Library of Alexandria, one of the oldest libraries of the world. The new Library and its affiliated research centers are devoted to using the newest technology to preserve the past and to promote access to the products of the human intellect. Choosing that place provides us with fabulous opportunities to increase awareness in the region about Wikipedia, its sister projects and the libre knowledge movement, but also to anchor our projects, based on very modern technologies, with ancient spirit of wisdom and traditional knowledge.
I would be quite amazed if this could not be a very neat PR opportunity and could not be in particular sponsored by governments, non profit educational organizations and big international organizations. In 2007, a lot of work has been provided for WMF to be recognized as a charity, and for WMF to be involved in various decision-making circles for global education. I hope WMF will be able to take benefit of this recognition.
Regarding participation and program, my wish would be that WMF makes real efforts to fund participation of many of our core participants, and use this opportunity to make "transmission of experience", and discussion and improvement of "civility" on the projects, a major part of Wikimania program. In the past year, I remember a very interesting workshop on this topic in Wikimania Taipei, several projects suffer from limited civility, in particular toward newcomers, and several of our members suffer cyberstalking in 2007. This is unacceptable. We must take the time to think about wikilove, and work to improve relationships between participants. Arguably, our projects are an example of peace making process (seriously :-)).
- Wikicouncil
I would like the Wikicouncil idea to be revived and implemented. For past discussion, please have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil. The Wikimedia Global Council would be a body of representatives for all projects who could serve alongside the elected members of the Board. Our projects are now far too big to easily permit circulation of information between community and organization. My belief is that we need an intermediary body. Please join the discussion.
- Chapters and general assembly
The relationship between chapters and Wikimedia Foundation has improved over the past year. There are now guidelines for creation, some chapters have received the permission to use trademarks within certain limits, several chapters were created etc....
However, it is still not sufficient. My wishlist is that further work be done to clarify relationships and lines of authority, and that a meeting be held annually with the chapters. I had hoped this assembly would occur in winter 2007, but this was delayed. I would like the board to agree to a meeting with wmf and chapters in spring 2008.
- Board membership, election
The board recently lost two members, Michael and Erik, who need to be replaced. The board also agreed to an expansion of the board, up to 11 members. However, to be transparent on this topic, there is strong disagreement on the board about what the board should be in the future.
Some members consider that the priority is that the board stays primarily a body representing the community, so that the community stays in control of the projects future. Missing skills would be then completed by senior staff members, many of which have recently joined the team and more senior staff being expected. Professionalization of the Foundation would mostly concern the staff, but not so much the board, who would have in turn to heavily rely on staff.
Other members argue that most community members lack the proper skills to be good members of a non profit organization the size and importance of Wikimedia Foundation, and lack the experience of american non-profits. They wish that the board professionalize as well. This would mean cutting down pretty severely in the number of community members, in particular elected, and would mean the arrival of various american big shots in replacement. In the same vein, these members argue that officers of WMF (chair and treasurer in particular) should not be community members, but rather individuals experienced in various skills (finances, legal, fundraising, management etc...), but also seasonned experts to deal with the high level companies and individuals we are now facing (as potential partners or competitors).
Needless to say, these two visions of the future are not totally compatible, and both visions hold a certain truth, which makes it doubly difficult to deal with.
One thing is certain, the past is well behind us, and the time when we could quietly grow is over. Key questions are "which view will dominate" and "how much does the community want to be involved in that decision".
I stand noisily and strongly in the first view, as I believe in
- an editing community in control of the projects they are creating
- a need for independence, which excludes adding to the board many
outsiders, tied by multiple conflict of interests 3) building an international organization, which seems incompatible with adding many outsiders all coming from the same nation (not to say the same city).
The risks of that position is that limited skills on the board might make us easy preys and might make us easily fall in legal or financial pits. We might also exhaust the professional team ;-)
Switching to a more professional board, with professional officers might make us stronger and might reveal a good idea in the long run. Risks are mostly loss of control and loss of independence. Another aspect is that the current board is willing to give a lot of its volunteer time. As our quest for a treasurer has shown, most professionals will either only accept to join against a stipend, or will mostly rely on the staff, merely becoming rubber stampers.
What should really be my wish list on this point ? I am not quite sure, but I think my wish list would probably be that we take time through each of the steps of our evolution. Professionalizing the staff means most of the staff is brand new and have to be introduced to our projects. Switching to a professional board means most of the board is also brand new and many have to be introduced to our projects. Doing both changes in a matter of couple of months, strikes me as more than unsuitable. It is "dangerous". My wish list would be that revolution be achieved in at least a year. As such, I would like that the board is expanded including mostly community members, as an interim board if necessary, and the brutal professionalization currently proposed be delayed until the end of the year.
- Financial sustainability, controls and independence
By now, it should be obvious to everyone that the audit of our previous fiscal year is taking more time than we would hope for, but it is all in audit firm hands now. Last fiscal year was difficult both because of the amazing growth of our projects, our limited revenue not making it possible to hire all the necessary staff at first, followed by high staff turn-over in spring 07. However, as the organization matures, the Wikimedia Foundation has begun implementing more necessary policies and procedures, considered normal practices for any healthy organization. The hiring of Sue Gardner, executive director, and Mike Godwin, our general counsel, has played a central role in ensuring that these new checks and balances are implemented properly. Sue also brought in Mona Venkateswaran, a former auditor and a CA, to assess Wikimedia's internal financial controls and systems, and recommend improvements. In summary, the Foundation has enacted many new controls, employee processes and procedures, and accountability systems. A first wish will naturally be that we keep on improving :-), that audit next year be done in a couple of weeks and detailed budget be voted before next summer.
My second wish is related to financial sustainability and independence. I would like that no decisions be taken on the paths to follow to achieve sustainability, without the involvement of the board and of the community.
- Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive
authority
Last wish is actually clearly related to several points listed above, but I chose to mention it as a goal again, to insist on its importance.
In fall 2006, the board chose me as chair, in a courageous move to evolve from a foundator based organization, to a more mature, group-led organization. At that time, the organization had only a couple of staff members. No real formal policies or procedures. Less than one board meeting a year. No agendas etc... I believe I helped the organization grow to the next step, which is just in front of us: moving from a group-led micro organization with a working board, to an organization with clear delineation between staff and board. I hope that the coming year will show a smooth and successful transition to our new professsional organization, where roles and responsibilities of all parties, board, staff and community, will be better understood and acknowledged, for the benefit of our project, in a shared vision.
In wikilove
Anthere/Florence
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463! http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
Oops, meant to say that cyberstalking will never stop.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:36:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] My 10 wishes list for 2008
Thanks for this.
People trust de.wiki because, well, the Germans are Germans, and, more importantly, they have stable versions. This means that quantity levels can be expanded safely. At enwiki's WikiProject Opera, we ruthlessly milked the Germans' fantastic series on Salieri's operas for our Salieri month.
Wonderful, but people should realise that WMF will either swim with the English Wikipedia, or will sink with it. No other project has half the name recognition. Which would make the enwiki community rejecting No.1 a bit of an issue.
Any problems here (which in turn impact on No.1) seem to stem from a lack of money, IMO. If WMF had the money to employ a full-time team of developers, which I don't believe it does, there wouldn't be an issue. Skipping 4...
Quick note on cyberstalking - happens everywhere, and its never going to happen. Moreover, its impact is overstated, and the correct response is NOT "Let's out the people who out us" - which often is, in actual fact, what happens. Skipping 6, only noting that idea has been kicking around for a while - I was vaguely curious why it was revived right at this moment? Also skip 7...
The most important thing to note here is that every time WMF has ballsed up, it's been due to a lack of professionalism. The same is also true of the various press-reported dramas on enwiki, now I think about it (not that that's at all relevant). It's not so important how it's done, but levels of general basic competence have to vastly increase. Probably also worth making the point that since this fundraiser shows the "milk the community" fundraising has its severe limits (and this is agrees with the literature I have read concerning professional fundraising), most of WMF's raised money is surely going to have to come from major private donors - wealthy individuals (as is usually the case). In terms of independence, this is surely something to worry about more than the possibility of a mostly-pro Board. The solution to this issue is surely discreet advertising - the subsequent cashflow would also provide enough money to solve most of the other problems, at least so I'd have thought. One thing is fairly sure - you will not find much professionalism at all in this ambiguous concept of "the community", and if you want things done right, by and large you have to pay for it. My personal view is that the community does not deserve to be running their own shop in the slightest, but I realise that is not a terribly popular point of view. Skip 9, ditto 10...
and Happy New Year to all!
CM
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:50:55 +0100 From: anthere@anthere.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org; fdevouard@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] My 10 wishes list for 2008
Dear all,
In my country, as well as in many countries (though not all), today is the first day of the new year. First of all, as is traditional, let me present my [[edit:wishes]] to all of you. I hope you will be in good health, will meet many successes, and will have fun in what you are doing.
Second, I would like to share with you my wikimedia-related-stuff wish list. I am pretty sure we will not all have the same, not even amongst board members, but here is my list anyway. As it is not a good idea to be too greedy, I limited myself to 10 wishes.
- Quality
- Promotion of lesser known projects
- Software development
- License, international laws and compatibility
- Wikimania, reinventing the wheel, and civility
- Wikicouncil
- Chapters and general assembly
- Board membership, election
- financial sustainability, controls and independance
- Organization. Clarification of board role and limits to executive
authority
_________________________________________________________________ Who's friends with who and co-starred in what? http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
On Jan 2, 2008 6:36 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Thanks for this.
- People trust de.wiki because, well, the Germans are Germans, and, more
importantly, they have stable versions.
No, we don't (yet).
Sebastian
Sebastian Moleski a écrit :
On Jan 2, 2008 6:36 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Thanks for this.
- People trust de.wiki because, well, the Germans are Germans, and, more
importantly, they have stable versions.
No, we don't (yet).
Sebastian
De.wiktionary has, [[wikt:de:User:Melancholie]] programmed it via JavaScript, best regards, Elisabeth Anderl (aka spacebirdy)
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Christiano Moreschi wrote:
- People trust de.wiki because, well, the Germans are Germans,
Of course.
- Any problems here (which in turn impact on No.1) seem to stem from a
lack of money, IMO.
As MediaWiki is one of the most widely used pieces of personal and group software in the world, there may be ways to better use the interest of other users and non-core developers to improve things.
- The most important thing to note here is that every time WMF has
ballsed up, it's been due to a lack of professionalism.
Cite? I don't know what "ballsed up" or "professionalism" mean to you, but this sounds unlikely to be true for most definitions.
Probably also worth making the point that since this fundraiser shows the "milk the community" fundraising has its severe limits (and this is agrees with the literature I have read concerning professional
It shows no such thing. There are much larger annual community fundraisers.
My personal view is that the community does not deserve to be running their own shop in the slightest
Of course if you don't trust your community, you may find it hard to get support from it. I suppose you would never have suggested a community be entrusted with writing reference material to begin with?
SJ
SJ Klein wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Christiano Moreschi wrote
- The most important thing to note here is that every time WMF has
ballsed up, it's been due to a lack of professionalism.
Cite? I don't know what "ballsed up" or "professionalism" mean to you, but this sounds unlikely to be true for most definitions.
What people who whine most about amateurish pages tend to forget is that they are written by amateurs ... and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org