[Foundation-l] Transparency

[Ray Saintonge]

Brianna Laugher wrote:
> On 10/01/2008, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> The WMF mostly provides a behind-the-scenes service to keep the servers running,
>> and many people would be perfectly happy if the WMF never, ever got
>> involved in the governance of individual projects.  When the WMF does get
>> involved, many participants wonder: "Why are you messing with MY work."
>>     
> And yet at the same time, the Foundation is also called upon to
> intervene in many controversies and issues, sometimes appropriately
> but often inappropriately. For example I have seen several critics of
> English Wikipedia culture chastise the Foundation for not acting in
> some way to improve it, but few Wikimedians would consider that
> appropriate, I think.
> Also copyright issues. They are a bit damned if they do and damned if
> they don't.
>   
More than a bit!  I think that it reflects a very common human 
phenomenon.  Despite their support for more democratic systems, most 
people are happier when they are told what to do.  For the majority 
having a template to define a task means that they can feel happy that 
they are accomplishing something when they fill in the blanks about 
something within the sense of order that the template provides.  For 
them someone who tinkers with a template in order to "improve" it is a 
disorienting influence.

For many of us who like to improve things it's hard to imagine why these 
lumpen masses never want to participate in the cut and thrust of 
decision making.  It can get worse when you consider social, content and 
technical improvements are often at odds with each other.

When someone asks the Foundation to intervene on a fine point of 
copyright they are often looking for a simplistic answer to a complex 
question.  In reality that question is as resolvable as the three-body 
problem in physics.  For the most part the WMF's answer should be, 
"Solve your own damn problems!"  Even the WikiCouncil will need to take 
such a stand if it is to respect the autonomy of the individual 
projects.  Since intervention is exceptional, such exceptions are best 
to be clearly defined.
> BTW I can not think of too many occasions where the Foundation *has*
> intervened with the governance of individual projects. The only one
> that comes to mind is the closure of fr.wq and I didn't even see a
> single person criticise the way that was handled. There was a lot of
> discussion about the licensing policy but I didn't see anyone suggest
> that it was inappropriate for the Foundation to do what it did.
I think that much of that has been with an it's-not-my-problem 
attitude.  We can be aware that something is happening in fr.wq or more 
recently in ru-wb, but even someone who is a frequent contributor to 
this list limits the topics in which he gets involved. I simply have no 
basis for judging anyone's actions in those incidents.  I can see where 
establishing how to deal with such matters would come under 
WikiCouncil's jurisdiction.

Ec