When I explain Wikipedia I hear the same comments everyday. Who is in
charge for each article? If everybody can edit ‘’my’’ article how can I
control its contents? What happens if we have an overlap between editors in
the same article and we can’t explain the exact role of everyone?
I don’t understand why even wikimedians when going to organize things
outside wikipedia are very reluctant to give some opportunities to try with
new models of organization that we have discovered in wikipedia that can
working very well. They tend to stick with old organizational models that
we know they work well with structures and principles not very well
matching with wikimedia values like hierarchy, exclusivity …
From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol
92, Issue 29
Europe is a big culturally diverse subcontinent of Eurasia with many
different Wikimedia organisations. So is India. India could organise itself
similarly to Europe with chapters following Political boundaries, or you
could do it by language instead, or perhaps by function - I've been
involved in charities where the fundraising organisation was quite distinct
from the volunteering fundspending organisation. Or maybe there would be
some other way that would work for Indian Wikimedians.
My advice as a complete outsider is that there are many ways that India
could choose to structure itself; but if you come up with a structure that
leaves Wikimedians from outside India suspecting there would be an overlap,
then don't be surprised if Indians who are not Wikimedians are similarly
confused. If Wikimedia in India emerges with a structure that only people
who are both Indians and also Wikimedians understand then you risk
confusing the press complicating things for yourselves. If remits are clear
and minimally overlapping then 1, 5 or 50 organisations might be sensible.
If remits substantially overlap and you can't clearly explain the different
roles then its probably best to just have the one organisation.