Birgitte writes:
Birgitte writes:
In another thread, Mike Goodwin said WMF can't be a club anymore and the concerned feelings come from those who miss the club.
It's "Godwin," not "Goodwin." I make no special claim to goodness.
I find this completely off-base. WMF is *becoming* a club now. In the past it was more like a trading center.
I think this criticism of my remark is fair. All analogies fail when you analyze them enough. I do believe that, in some ways, the Wikimedia projects (and the Foundation) were like a club -- now they are less so. I think it is a defensible argument that some people miss the club. Nevertheless, p.rofessionalizing the infrastructure is an important, positive step.
That said, I would prefer it if the community felt like a club to long- time participants. I think it's important that community members feel that they are a member of something real (which is my belief), and I think the projects depend upon the communities in a fundamental, irreducible way. So I think it's important that we continue to increase our engagement with community members in mailing lists and elsewhere. (I'm one of those who believes our engagement is actually increasing, not decreasing.)
I speak as someone who worked to develop other communities -- the WELL, cyberliberties activists, and others -- so I worry that Birgitte is interpreting my anti-club remark as an anti-community remark.
--m
On 1/10/08, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Birgitte writes:
I find this completely off-base. WMF is *becoming* a club now. In the past it was more like a trading center.
I think this criticism of my remark is fair. All analogies fail when you analyze them enough. I do believe that, in some ways, the Wikimedia projects (and the Foundation) were like a club -- now they are less so. I think it is a defensible argument that some people miss the club. Nevertheless, p.rofessionalizing the infrastructure is an important, positive step. ...
I think that I understand about what Gregory and Brigitte talk. Also, it looks to me that after Board's decision about licenses things became much better, thanks to the community's pressure after the decision.
Wikimedian community was a club of people involved in in the projects. During this year it became obvious that it is not such club anymore, which is good.
But, tendencies which are making WMF as a club of Wikimedian leaders which are making a meta-club with other similar clubs -- didn't start yesterday. And this is a problem.
Wikimedian community is *very* different from other free culture communities because it is not a group of geeks who don't want to be included in "some boring things" (like free software and open source movements are), as well as it is not a group of professionals who are communicating between themselves on the professional level.
Our community is much more diverse and much more like any society in the world. Because of that, community members don't want to treat community leaders as "good managers" or "people who made a right thing at the right time", but as a political leaders who need to be good managers, to do the right thing at the right time, but not only that.
I really think that comparing WM community with other free culture communities is a wrong way of thinking. Community similar to Wikimedian didn't happen in the history and people who are in the position to lead it have to be very creative and extremely careful in building its future. Consequences of doing good and bad job may be similar (while I hope not so drastic) to the consequences of bad job done by League of Nations.
Maybe it may look like a hyperbola, but I really feel that something big is brewing. And it is much better to be more careful then responsible for a disaster.
On 1/10/08, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Birgitte writes:
I find this completely off-base. WMF is *becoming* a club now. In the past it was more like a trading center.
I think this criticism of my remark is fair. All analogies fail when you analyze them enough. I do believe that, in some ways, the Wikimedia projects (and the Foundation) were like a club -- now they are less so. I think it is a defensible argument that some people miss the club. Nevertheless, p.rofessionalizing the infrastructure is an important, positive step. ...
on 1/10/08 2:28 PM, Milos Rancic at millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I think that I understand about what Gregory and Brigitte talk. Also, it looks to me that after Board's decision about licenses things became much better, thanks to the community's pressure after the decision.
Wikimedian community was a club of people involved in in the projects. During this year it became obvious that it is not such club anymore, which is good.
But, tendencies which are making WMF as a club of Wikimedian leaders which are making a meta-club with other similar clubs -- didn't start yesterday. And this is a problem.
Wikimedian community is *very* different from other free culture communities because it is not a group of geeks who don't want to be included in "some boring things" (like free software and open source movements are), as well as it is not a group of professionals who are communicating between themselves on the professional level.
Our community is much more diverse and much more like any society in the world. Because of that, community members don't want to treat community leaders as "good managers" or "people who made a right thing at the right time", but as a political leaders who need to be good managers, to do the right thing at the right time, but not only that.
I really think that comparing WM community with other free culture communities is a wrong way of thinking. Community similar to Wikimedian didn't happen in the history and people who are in the position to lead it have to be very creative and extremely careful in building its future. Consequences of doing good and bad job may be similar (while I hope not so drastic) to the consequences of bad job done by League of Nations.
Maybe it may look like a hyperbola, but I really feel that something big is brewing. And it is much better to be more careful then responsible for a disaster.
There is something big that is brewing, Milos. The Wikipedia Community is becoming more identified, more questioning, more assertive, and is demanding more of a voice in decision making. And there are those in positions of insinuated "authority" who are having a great deal of trouble with this. Hang in there, there is a whole new model for a cyberspace community that is also brewing.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
...
There is something big that is brewing, Milos. The Wikipedia Community is becoming more identified, more questioning, more assertive, and is demanding more of a voice in decision making. And there are those in positions of insinuated "authority" who are having a great deal of trouble with this. Hang in there, there is a whole new model for a cyberspace community that is also brewing.
Marc Riddell
Hi Marc,
Here are a couple of links that are relevant to this topic, as well as being relevant to some recent posts on the role of the Foundation. They reference the idea of a membership driven community rather than a 'top-down' organization. Maybe we've come full circle. It would be helpful to hear from those who participated in the events described, as well as Alex. Thanks
Marc Riddell wrote:
...
There is something big that is brewing, Milos. The Wikipedia Community is becoming more identified, more questioning, more assertive, and is demanding more of a voice in decision making. And there are those in positions of insinuated "authority" who are having a great deal of trouble with this. Hang in there, there is a whole new model for a cyberspace community that is also brewing.
Marc Riddell
on 1/10/08 5:50 PM, luke brandt at shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Marc,
Here are a couple of links that are relevant to this topic, as well as being relevant to some recent posts on the role of the Foundation. They reference the idea of a membership driven community rather than a 'top-down' organization. Maybe we've come full circle. It would be helpful to hear from those who participated in the events described, as well as Alex. Thanks
Thank you for this, Luke. History is becoming less and less of a mystery, and is making more and more sense of the present. The paths toward change are becoming clearer and clearer.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
Hi Marc,
Here are a couple of links that are relevant to this topic, as well as being relevant to some recent posts on the role of the Foundation. They reference the idea of a membership driven community rather than a 'top-down' organization. Maybe we've come full circle. It would be helpful to hear from those who participated in the events described, as well as Alex. Thanks
Thank you for this, Luke. History is becoming less and less of a mystery, and is making more and more sense of the present. The paths toward change are becoming clearer and clearer.
Marc
Marc,
Someone said: from history to mystery - the reluctance to be born.
Or as someone more famous put it:
The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm
Decisions taken on our behalf - taken by people who think they know best - leading to more bureaucracy, less independence for individual Wikimedia chapters.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters
Less diversity for no real advantage. What a sad trade-off, don't you think. Doubly so, in the network/wiki age.
HUBRIS written in large letters, and we have to live with the consequences: Endless discussions on perfecting our "organization" - *yuk*
Take care
Mike Godwin wrote:
Birgitte writes
In another thread, Mike Goodwin said WMF can't be a club anymore and the concerned feelings come from those who miss the club.
It's "Godwin," not "Goodwin." I make no special claim to goodness.
Is there any mnemonic value to remembering that a Godwin invented Frankenstein, and another was father of Philosophical Anarchism.
I find this completely off-base. WMF is *becoming* a club now. In the past it was more like a trading center.
I think this criticism of my remark is fair. All analogies fail when you analyze them enough. I do believe that, in some ways, the Wikimedia projects (and the Foundation) were like a club -- now they are less so. I think it is a defensible argument that some people miss the club. Nevertheless, p.rofessionalizing the infrastructure is an important, positive step.
That said, I would prefer it if the community felt like a club to long- time participants. I think it's important that community members feel that they are a member of something real (which is my belief), and I think the projects depend upon the communities in a fundamental, irreducible way. So I think it's important that we continue to increase our engagement with community members in mailing lists and elsewhere.
The demarcation between the Foundation and the various communities has never been clear to many people, so that questions of governance can become quite muddled. To its credit, the Board avoids involving itself in the perpetual disputes between community members.
I speak as someone who worked to develop other communities -- the WELL, cyberliberties activists, and others -- so I worry that Birgitte is interpreting my anti-club remark as an anti-community remark.
A lot of this depends on how one interprets club. After all, major professional sports teams call themselves clubs, and that's hardly the kind of club we would want.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org