[Foundation-l] Structure of Wikimedian community

[Robert Horning]

Milos Rancic wrote:
> I have to say that I am very surprised with the fact that some of
> veteran Wikimedians don't understand distinctions between projects,
> community and organization. (I didn't use irony, I am really
> surprised.) The point is that we have to deal with three different
> types organizing at once and that we need to find ways how to deal
> with them. Something which is appropriate for one type of organizing
> is not necessarily appropriate for another.
>   

Part of the problem here is that, for good or bad, there is some sort of 
disconnect between the "community" and the "board".  But at the same 
time the two groups interact with each other in a very complex 
relationship that is sometimes even difficult for those directly 
involved to completely understand.

So no, I'm not so surprised here.  There isn't a simple organizational 
chart that can completely explain the relationships here, and any such 
chart that could be developed would in reality be overly simplistic in 
terms of the roles that everybody plays in terms of the political 
processes that happen within Wikimedia projects.  It is the product of 
years of experience in trying to do a seemingly impossible task:  of 
creating a "community" developed encyclopedia and similarly related 
projects oriented toward collaborative writing.  The sheer chaos of the 
whole thing is so weird that for those outside of this whole process and 
familiar with more hierarchical organizations, they can't really get a 
grip on what role everybody plays in these relationships.

There may be multiple ways of thinking about how this is all put 
together, and from my own perspective I could come up with more than 
just the three you mention.  There are project leaders, language 
leaders, chapter leaders, official foundation leaders, committee 
leaders, project within the project leaders (like the Wikiprojects on 
Wikipedia), "page" leaders... in other words people who demonstrate 
leadership in terms of resolving consensus on POV fights, 
administrators, arbitrators, and finally paid staff.  I'm sure you can 
come up with even more groups of individuals.  What is more, is some of 
the people... many or most of those who post regularly on this list.... 
who wear multiple hats and participate in the projects on multiple 
levels.... sometimes simultaneously.

There is also an egalitarian spirit on most Wikimedia projects where 
once you have demonstrated that you are acting on good faith, that your 
opinion and ideas are equally valid and important as anybody else's.  
That you get into fights over content and procedures is also true, and 
for the most part it is amazing to me that much of anything gets 
accomplished at all, much less that millions of pages of content have 
been written and content worthy of professional standards is available 
from that effort.  The newest Wikimedia contributor is as important as 
the oldest veteran.... and I believe it is important to maintain that 
attitude if we wish to have people to carry on these projects when for 
one reason or another we need to move on to other things in our lives.

You can divide up those involved in getting this process going into 
categories, but even dividing up the "job descriptions" into categories, 
much less the people themselves.  For most of those I've been involved 
with on Wikimedia projects, they make their own positions and define 
their own relationships by finding a task that needs to be done and 
stick with it until they get tired of it.  That is how most Wikimedia 
sister project got started in the first place, and how most major 
features on each of the projects got started as well.  Anything 
resembling a hierarchy may exist on paper, but it may be difficult to 
know where the top or the bottom of that hierarchy may in fact lay.  
Certainly there are a range of opinions on who is really in charge and 
what that really means, or what they are in charge of.

--Robert Horning