[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50

[Esther Fiteni]

please could you unsubscribe me. thank you esther fiteni


>From: foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
>Reply-To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:00:30 +0000
>
>Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
>	foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	foundation-l-owner at wikimedia.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Where we are headed (Samuel Klein)
>    2. Re: Where we are headed (Ray Saintonge)
>    3. Re: Wikimedia main office (Daniel Mayer)
>    4. Re: Where we are headed (Gavin Chait)
>    5. Re: Catalan Wikinews set up (Arbeo M)
>    6. Re: Where we are headed (Jimmy Wales)
>    7. Re: Wikimedia main office (Ray Saintonge)
>    8. Re: Wikimedia main office (Ray Saintonge)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:02:50 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605292200340.31303 at hcs.harvard.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"
>
>
>On Tue, 30 May 2006, Anthere wrote:
>
> > Jimbo says
> >
> > "... nous souhaitons g?n?rer une version
> > ? stable ? des articles, v?rifi?e et approuv?e par des experts sur le
> > sujet, tout en maintenant la possibilit? de le modifier. Il est hors de
> > question de demander aux b?n?voles de faire le plus gros du travail, et
> > de  demander ? un expert de peaufiner le rest."
> >
> > Translation
> >
> > "We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
> > approved by experts on the topic, whilst keeping the option of
> > modification of the article. It is excluded to ask volunteers to do most
> > of the bulk work, and to ask to an expert to just take care of the
> > polishing".
> >
> > What was meant here ?
>
>I don't know, but experts are volunteers too, something most of the world
>constantly forgets.  We need a list of contributors who are experts -- 
>divided
>into those who contribute in their field of expertise, and those who avoid 
>that
>like the plague.
>
>Sj
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:44:48 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447BCDC0.3020903 at telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Gavin Chait wrote:
>
> >The most immediate concern for the Wiki Foundation is less the idea of an
> >office with furniture and windows, or even the difficulties of
> >collaboration, mostly it is continuity.
> >
> >At the moment the founders are involved.  They have an idea of what they
> >want and how to achieve that.  There are now thousands of regular
> >contributors who are influencing that direction.  There are millions of
> >occasional contributors who muddy the edges.  How do you ensure 
>continuity?
> >
>This is a question with profound implications.  Accomodating these
>segments of our society without losing focus is no trivial problem.
>
> >One of the first development organisations I worked in 15 years ago was a
> >student-run endeavour at the University of Cape Town.  Every year 
>hundreds
> >of students volunteer and contribute to different projects.  Each project 
>is
> >run by older students.  Continuity is difficult where students graduate 
>and
> >leave each year.  Sometimes entire projects vanish when the students who
> >know how to run them fail to come back.
> >
>Students enrolled in a programme of finite duration are more likely to
>make provision for their successors.  If a project vanishes when they
>leave maybe it has outlived its value.  Our senior people are here for
>an indefinite period, and may find it more difficult to envision their
>project mortality.
>
> >The solution was to employ a small band of professionals whose task is to
> >make sure that projects are properly budgeted and accounted for, keep 
>track
> >of how the different projects interact, and ensure that the overall 
>emphasis
> >of the organisation remains focused.  The professionals ensure 
>consistency
> >while the volunteers contribute fresh ideas, fresh thinking, new 
>directions
> >and lots of enthusiasm.
> >
> >It has worked well for more than 50 years for this organisation.
> >
> >Offices are far less important than continuity.  And the more you rely on
> >volunteers, the more important it is to have a solid base of 
>professionals -
> >where-ever they may be.
> >
>Your conclusion is well taken.  But before this can happen there needs
>to be a fundamental understanding about the role of the professional and
>the role of the volunteer.  Larry Sanger was good for Wikipedia at the
>time that he was here, but someone like him would be totally unsuitable
>to the present circumstances.  Decisions often _must_ be made without
>waiting around debating like the Paris Commune.  The questions that then
>arise are What do we want our professional to do?  What do we want him
>not to do?
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <20060530050209.7068.qmail at web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> > > amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> > > administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being 
>a
> > > professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> > > are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> > > nature.
> >
> > But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> > work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> > offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> > more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> > what it does best.
>
>Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the 
>Wikimedia Foundation
>(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, am 
>an amateur when it
>comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. And 
>yet I'm the CFO. Which
>may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small 
>budget, but not now.
>
>I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied 
>responsibilities that
>require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the 
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
>have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but 
>there simply is a limit to
>what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or 
>two - at most - a day to
>this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education 
>perspective.
>
>That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into 
>effect once the foundation
>finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
>
>The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
>
>-- mav
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:46:26 +0200
>From: "Gavin Chait" <gchait at gmx.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <003e01c683c0$1ccaa580$7a7219c4 at nowdomore>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>	reply-type=original
>
>Continuity is less about individuals than it is about systems and the
>organisation of information.
>
>This means that the system must be defined.  Definition does not imply
>limitation.  It is important to know how new projects are organised, run 
>and
>scrutinised without declaring what they should be.  How far one goes with
>the hierarchy is also important.  Are different language versions or large
>sub-projects of a common project different projects?  Many "embarrassing"
>moments have come out of English content wikis.  How many potential 
>pitfalls
>are waiting in other languages?  How feasible is it to have language 
>experts
>for each of the wikis?  Recognising limitations inherent in the system is
>also important - these should be declared.
>
>The professional project manager can still be a volunteer.  There are large
>numbers of astonishingly talented people willing to work for free for 
>causes
>they believe in.  The difference between a volunteer and a "professional" 
>is
>not about paid / unpaid it is about the time dedicated to a project and
>their accountability.  Some projects are large enough to require full-time
>commitment.  Project managers must accept this and be responsible.  Not all
>the things that need doing are glamorous.
>
>Project management may not be about content generation alone.  It is also
>about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and answerable to 
>the
>organisation at large.  If something goes wrong, they must sort it out
>immediately and understand and report back on how it happened.  They are
>also there to find their own successor.
>
>There must be a project log, and project manual that details exactly how
>things are done (thus ensuring a consistent approach).  Clearly the manual
>can evolve but it must be the DNA for the project.
>
>A simple project blog or mailing list isn't good enough since the quantity
>of information produced (and the various diversions it follows) makes rapid
>decision making impossible.  In reality, each project needs its own
>moderated (and access limited) wiki where the basics are paired down:  how
>things are done, daily / weekly / monthly ... tasks, etc.  At the moment
>projects may be run by the person who started them or someone one or two
>iterations away.  What happens in 50 years?
>
>The organisation itself requires a similar approach with a slightly larger
>set of responsibilities:  PR, legal, accounting, admin and an overall
>director.  These are the trappings of any formal development organisation.
>Having them doesn't limit the activity of the volunteers, it is simply a
>responsible way of handling information generated by the organisation.
>
>The director also needs feedback and that will come from your board.
>
>Each of the tasks can be defined and each of the roles can be filled.  A
>mechanism for recruiting and training new people to fill each task is much
>more straightforward when you know exactly what that task is.
>
>I would imagine that a simple flow could be as follows:  volunteer works on
>a project, gets more involved, gets groomed to become the project leader,
>stays in that for a year and grooms his / her replacement, gets invited to
>join the core team, gets groomed to become director, serves for a set
>period, becomes a board member.  Some of these tasks are full-time, some 
>are
>not.  The person accepting major tasks does so recognising what the
>commitment is and what it will cost them (if the tasks are unpaid).
>
>This is continuity.  It doesn't limit the content, projects or creativity 
>of
>the organisation.  It channels the most capable people through a system 
>that
>maintains the integrity of their knowledge while still allowing the
>organisation to evolve and meet future needs.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:35:53 +0200
>From: "Arbeo M" <arbeo.wiki at googlemail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Catalan Wikinews set up
>To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>	<e1406ce00605300435o2aff3f82ia2d17204ee8b8cc at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 5/26/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Wikinews has a bit of an unusual process. Individual Wikinews language
>editions have to meet much higher standards than, for example,
>Wikipedias to be launched.
>...
>The procedure for creating a new Wikinews edition is at:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition
>
>Thanks for the info. Didn't know about this special procedure wrt Wikinews.
>
>A.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:22:05 +0200
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447C550D.7050301 at wikia.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>Anthere wrote:
> > By the way, a citation published on a french site recently (an interview
> > from Jimbo).
> >
> > Jimbo says
> >
> > "... nous souhaitons g?n?rer une version
> > ? stable ? des articles, v?rifi?e et approuv?e par des experts sur le
> > sujet, tout en maintenant la possibilit? de le modifier. Il est hors de
> > question de demander aux b?n?voles de faire le plus gros du travail, et
> > de  demander ? un expert de peaufiner le rest."
> >
> > Translation
> >
> > "We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
> > approved by experts on the topic, whilst keeping the option of
> > modification of the article. It is excluded to ask volunteers to do most
> > of the bulk work, and to ask to an expert to just take care of the
> > polishing".
>
>"We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
>approved by the community, using a process which meets or exceeds the
>quality level of traditional encyclopedias.  Such a process should
>involve people with expertise, of course, but it would not be acceptable
>for us to take the attitude that "ah, thank you to the volunteers, but
>now we have experts to come in and finish the job".  Rather, we seek to
>extend our community process in new ways over time, always remaining
>open to new ideas for higher quality."
>
>--Jimbo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:51:13 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: dmayer at wikimedia.org,	Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>	<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447CA231.90902 at telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> >>>amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> >>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> >>>professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> >>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> >>>nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> >>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> >>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> >>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> >>what it does best.
> >>
> >>
> >Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the 
>Wikimedia Foundation
> >(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, 
>am an amateur when it
> >comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. 
>And yet I'm the CFO. Which
> >may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small 
>budget, but not now.
> >
> >I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied 
>responsibilities that
> >require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the 
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
> >have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but 
>there simply is a limit to
> >what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or 
>two - at most - a day to
> >this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education 
>perspective.
> >
> >That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into 
>effect once the foundation
> >finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
> >
> >The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
> >
>I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid
>staff.  I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to
>dry in the CFO job.  While you have no doubt worked at the position to
>the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity
>with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and
>avoided volunteering for the task.  I really don't think that the Board
>has ever been on top of this portfolio.
>
>The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
>concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
>indeed be different in these two organizations.  In many respects we
>need to start building a firewall between the two.  This would leave the
>WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
>Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
>innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
>any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing.  There
>are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
>development with great glee.  There needs to be an arm's length
>relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
>that.
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:42:43 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: dmayer at wikimedia.org,	Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>	<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447CA033.8090709 at telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> >>>amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> >>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> >>>professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> >>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> >>>nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> >>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> >>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> >>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> >>what it does best.
> >>
> >>
> >Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the 
>Wikimedia Foundation
> >(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, 
>am an amateur when it
> >comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. 
>And yet I'm the CFO. Which
> >may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small 
>budget, but not now.
> >
> >I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied 
>responsibilities that
> >require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the 
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
> >have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but 
>there simply is a limit to
> >what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or 
>two - at most - a day to
> >this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education 
>perspective.
> >
> >That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into 
>effect once the foundation
> >finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
> >
> >The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
> >
>I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid
>staff.  I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to
>dry in the CFO job.  While you have no doubt worked at the position to
>the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity
>with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and
>avoided volunteering for the task.  I really don't think that the Board
>has ever been on top of this portfolio.
>
>The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
>concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
>indeed be different in these two organizations.  In many respects we
>need to start building a firewall between the two.  This would leave the
>WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
>Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
>innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
>any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing.  There
>are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
>development with great glee.  There needs to be an arm's length
>relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
>that.
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50
>********************************************