[Foundation-l] WMF and the press

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are two opposing forces, there are those that want to present a
positive face to the WMF and there are those who consider that everything
should be in the open and everything is permitted to be said. The argument
that negative publications impact the ability to raise funds is a powerful
one. There have been people that have indicated never to donate to the WMF
again. When I talk with people from organisations about the WMF, I am often
asked about the latest reason why Wikipedia / the WMF is in imminent danger
of collapse... I get used to it.

With the continuous wrangling the press and the public will get also used to
the notion that ours is a lively community. The good news is that they may
not always have their fact straight, they at least know how to spell
Wikipedia Foundation :)

There have been moves to make the WMF more open in its reporting about what
it is doing and the reasons why. Much of what is reported on is talked to
death and the net effect is not great or more precisely cannot be deduced.
Important to note is that it is very much reporting that is happening, I am
personally convinced that the general mood of the opinions is understood by
both the board of trustees and by the organisation.

When people are of the opinion that decisions have to be shared/vetted by
the "community", they ask for power / influence, this comes at the cost of
making the functioning of the foundation more diffucult. By devolving power
to the chapters by including them prominently in the board of trustees, it
is clear that the discussions about foundation policy are targeted to be
done on a country level. From an organisational point of view I can
understand this experiment as it gives additional relevance to the chapters

It is one powerful argument for the Americans to get their house in order
and finally have their own chapter.

Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/27/08, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF and the press
> > To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 9:14 AM
> > Anthony wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Florence Devouard
> > <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>  If we must maintain a common voice, the main
> > question left is "who is in
> > >>  control of the information distributed", and
> > what will be the channels
> > >>  of distribution of the information. In an
> > internet area, the one who has
> > >>  control over the information distributed or not
> > distributed, has in
> > >>  reality control of the organization. That's
> > basic strategy.
> > >>
> > > It's unclear to me exactly what you're trying
> > to say, but when you put
> > > it that way, isn't it obvious that maintaining a
> > common voice is a bad
> > > idea?  The leaks to the press, then, are not
> > disastrous, but the only
> > > hope for salvation.
> > >
> > > In any case, the explanation that the press is
> > considered bad because
> > > the Foundation seeks to maintain a common voice is a
> > good one.  In a
> > > private response someone said to me that the
> > Foundation dislikes the
> > > press because the Foundation is doing inappropriate
> > things (my
> > > paraphrase).  My response was that even if *some
> > individuals* in the
> > > Foundation are doing inappropriate things, it is still
> > in the best
> > > interests of the Foundation *as a whole* to reveal
> > those things, so
> > > that it is much more likely that similar things
> > don't happen again.
> >
> > As far as I can say, no individuals are doing inappropriate
> > things in
> > the Foundation, so there is nothing to reveal.
> > The problem is that, in our organization, just as in any
> > organization,
> > there are sometimes some disagreements in the way things
> > are run (eg,
> > Lodewijk this morning). These disagreements are normal. And
> > the
> > appropriate way to help solve these disagreements is by
> > talking through
> > them.
> > What is bad is to make too much noise around each
> > disagreement, putting
> > too much importance in them, or inventing arguments,
> > inventing other
> > stories to further fuel the disagreements.
> >
> > Ant
>
> The way to lower the noise is for the disagreements to be less unexpected,
> which requires being more upfront about where individuals opinions are from
> the beginning before it becomes a big deal.  In all I agree with Anthony
> that "we must maintain a common voice" is a false premise. The problem is
> not the press it is the concept of a common voice.  As long as the board
> attempts to maintain one common voice these problems will continue.
>
> First of all I think the premise that a common voice is required is
> inherently questionable.  Secondly, even if is good for other organizations,
> it isn't working for WMF.  It hasn't worked and, since the line has already
> been crossed, leaks will certainly continue.  It is past time the concept
> was abandoned.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>