Angela wrote:
On 9/24/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it contributes to our mission.
I doubt you'll get another such request since I've been told that new language wikis is not a Board issue and I shouldn't be taking decisions on these or asking developers to start them. What people fail to realise is that if the Board doesn't take these decisions (and perhaps they're right and the Board shouldn't) - then who is going to take them? There is increasingly resistance to the Board doing anything, but also resistance to them delegating any authority they may have had, which is just leading to stagnation. So, who should be taking the decision on new language wikis (and also on new projects), especially when no http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages has ever been agreed upon?
You're essentially correct. If the Board doesn't make such decisions maybe no-one will, and sometimes that's not entirely a bad thing. I personally think that the proposed policy that you mention makes it too easy to start a new Wiki; the proposed Cantonese Wikipedia could likely succeed under these policies. Leaving that aside there is still a question of process which remains to be solved. A strong argument can be made that adopting such a policy is within the mandate of the Board because it has an overall impact on the Wikimedia projects as a whole. This cannot be said of the application of such a policy to a particular set of circumstances. The application needs to be delegated to someone who has enough courage to say no when the criteria have not been met; that person needs to feel confident that his decision in accordance with policy will not be undermined when some disgruntled individual goes whinging to the Board.
The broader stagnation dilemma that you raise is a real problem in "democratic" structures. Jimbo has said from time to time on these lists that Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's fine, but even Macchiavelli did not believe in a regime of unremitting suppression. A happy populace will always be more productive. No Board of Directors of a large corporation will get entangled in the day-to-day micromanagement of that corporation; that would be disastrous.
What does fall within the Board's scope of operation (not it's authority, where in law it can do everything) is the right to establish a basic operating rule outlining what does the Board do itself, and what it delegates. It then develops credibility by not interfering with the work of its delegates as long they act within their duly defined mandates.
When some kind of board structure was being proposed before the Wikimedia Foundation was formally established I suggested two levels of boards. One, essentially the present Board, would function more as trustees who would ensure that the Foundation remain within the principles that led to its establishment; it would also be responsible for such broad issues as the financial viability of the organization. The second would have a more operational capacity, it could investigate proposals in greater detail and advise the trustees about current issues; it would have decision-making powers within defined parameters.
The concept of democracy embraced by some of Wikimedia's citizens leaves much to be desired. Sometimes policy changes are passed because no-one has noticed a subtle change on a policy page; other policies are subjected to votes where very few people know about the vote or participate. In yet other cases policies are debated interminably and the policy that wins is the one that's left on the policy page after evryone else is exhausted.. In yet other cases there may be a very strong debate between two strong-willed individuals with everyone else completely avoiding the issue and failing to step in with alternatives that would lead to a generally acceptable solution.
Ultimately the question is not about who makes the specific decision to go ahead with a new language or project. It is about how the Board scalably defines its own role within the organization, and commits itself to that well defined role.
Ec