[Foundation-l] Structure of Wikimedian community

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are not two but three parts to the whole of the WMF. There are the
communities, there is the board and there is the WMF organisation.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>