[Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Besides having a great time on Wikimania, I've heard a number of
> complains which put a shadow on a really great event. At some point of
> time I was even a bit depressed.
>
> I was thinking a lot about should I raise this issue or not; and if
> yes, then how. After the first issue I thought not to talk about it at
> all. After the second, I thought that it is better not to talk. After
> the third, I thought that I should contact some people privately.
> After the fourth I've realized that I should talk about it publicly.
> Then a couple of more issues came which convinced me that I have to
> talk about that publicly. We are open community and serious issues,
> those which affect many people, should be discussed publicly.
>
> I will talk without mentioning names, but I will try to be precise
> enough. In other words, I don't want to talk about people and
> organizations, but about problems. Taking care about problems is much
> more important than making witch hunts.
>
> It also should be noted that all of those problems are "natural" and I
> don't see that any of them is able to hurt Wikimedia movement, if we
> put it under control. It also should be noted that there are many
> successful corrupted organizations, like FIFA and OIC are. However, I
> hope that we won't go that way.
>
> I've heard about two serious corruption issues among chapters. And as
> I am living in a deeply corrupted country, I am personally very upset
> with this. However, those two cases are too obvious not to be
> recognized and fixing is in ongoing phase. However, I am very deeply
> concerned about what is going with the rest of 20+ chapters. And what
> will happen with them when they are able to become corrupted. We need
> an audit system for checking how things are going on in all chapters.
> In this case I am much more concerned about chapters than about WMF,
> but it would be good to have a common international body which would
> audit all of the important issues among chapters and WMF.
>
> What I am able to realize a couple of months earlier, everybody are
> able to realize when those things become public. I've already
> mentioned privately that I am deeply concerned with the connection
> with US business interests and present WMF strategy (not to be
> confused with whole Strategic Planning, but partially yes). It is now
> a public issue, although my concern has been seen by very limited
> number of people. And I am quite sure that it was not about spreading
> my concern via informal channels, but about recognizing the problem by
> a number of Wikimedians separately. I hope that Strategy Planning will
> fix those problems -- if properly implemented.
>
> There is a split between those who are coming from rich and poor
> countries. Wikimania social networking was about various groups. I am
> lucky that I am connected well and that I know where should I ask and
> what should I ask. However, there are Wikimedians who are not well
> connected and who don't know where to ask and what to ask. I am also
> from a country similar to Poland and I had a feeling like I am just in
> a little bit weird city of my own country. But, many Wikimedians came
> from very different parts of the world, as well as they were not able
> to buy their confidence. If we want to be a global movement, we have
> to think about them. It is not just about Wikimanias, it is about
> every social interaction in which Wikimedia is involved. Thus, I fully
> support Wikimedia Israel initiative for helping spreading Wikimedia
> projects into developing world. And if organizations from Israel are
> not welcomed everywhere, there are many other Wikimedia chapter which
> could help.
>
> Wikimedia is now a global movement and global culture. It is not
> anymore a site with cool content, but an organization and movement
> with worldwide impact. *All* decisions of WMF, chapters and their
> bodies are now political decisions in the international sense. So,
> *before* making *any* decision, please consider political impact of
> your decision. If you need help, you can ask various Wikimedians or
> hire a professional in international relations.
>
> WMF and chapters have enough money now to be attracted by careerists.
> Persons who try to put themselves as "mid-players", between Wikimedia
> organizations and people and organizations who are working with WM
> organizations. WMF and chapters should be explicit in noting to
> everybody that such behavior is not acceptable and to Wikimedians that
> they are safe of it.
>
> Closely connected with the previous previous is the fact that many
> Wikimedians feel that they are alienated from Wikimedia leadership
> (not just WMF and staff, but more about some amorphous mass of
> influential Wikimedians). There was an incident in Dormitory 6 because
> of misunderstanding between organizers and dormitory management. I
> would say that it shouldn't be a big deal, as such problems can happen
> everywhere. What was not usual is the reaction of the part of
> Wikimedians who were there. Some of them were cool and just somewhat
> frustrated because of this. However, the reaction and feeling of the
> other part was "We shouldn't call them [WMF and organizers]. They will
> not help us. They don't care for us. They have fun in the city,
> although we have problems here."
>
> This feeling is irrational in the particular case. Organizers took
> care about them, of course. However, I didn't hear this from a couple
> of well connected Wikimedians who were there. I didn't hear it from
> Europeans and inhabitants of other OECD countries. I've heard this
> from not so rich Wikimedians who were far away from home; from those
> who felt insecure in a distant country and who feel a gap between
> those with money (and/or connections) and them.
>
> This list is consisted of our first serious real-world problems. Yes,
> I know that we used to be virtual, online, onwiki. I know that those
> problems are new for us. But if we want to stay as a global movement,
> we have to fix them. Otherwise, we'll be just another attempt for
> creating a decadent society which main purpose is to make fun for rich
> and wannabe rich. And, by the way, to explain to poor how rich world
> looks like.


With any group of people there is always the difficulty of bridging
the "in group" and everyone else. It's worth pointing out that to many
people, the ability to go to Wikimania is one of the characteristics
that separates the "in group" from the rest of us. It's interesting
that even among attendees, you noticed a divide.

One thing that perpetuates such divisions is withholding of somehow
privileged information (i.e. choosing that something widely known
among a certain group of people should stay "private" from those not
already in the know). As an example I'll mention two of the problems
you listed: firstly, the concerns about the WMF and its connection to
US business interests, and secondly the notion of confirmed corruption
within Wikimedia chapters. Perhaps these are common knowledge among
subscribers to internal-l, but I don't miss many threads on this list
and I haven't seen either issue mentioned as a significant problem.
For me what you've written are facts of first impression, and you
didn't include much specific information that would allow me to grasp
their real importance.

Nathan