[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman

[MZMcBride]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 21 November 2010 21:14, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't say that disagreements are due to unclear roles. I would say most
>> disagreements come from the Wikimedia Foundation not adhering to its
>> principles, values, and mission as closely as some feel it should. This
>> includes a commitment to transparency and accountability.
> 
> What are some examples of particular current problems that you feel
> this position would fix?

I'm not sure I agree that this position is designed to fix any current
problems. The task of fixing the problems lies with those currently in power
at the Wikimedia Foundation. However, in order to address problems, problems
must be clearly defined. That can be the role of an ombudsman. Like most
ombudsman positions, the task inside the Wikimedia Foundation would be to
point out the problems and encourage discussion of them (cf. National Public
Radio Ombudsman's blog).

I don't think there would be any lack of issues that the Ombudsman could
address, but in general I would say that the focus would be on issues that
relate to violations of or perceived violations of the Wikimedia
Foundation's principles. For example, if the Wikimedia Foundation is
engaging in a large amount of non-public but relevant discussion that
members of the community feel is inappropriate, the Ombudsman could
investigate and discuss the issue. Similarly, if the Ombudsman feels that
the Wikimedia Foundation is allocating resources in a manner inconsistent
with its mission and purpose, that could be up for discussion as well.

> Why is this particular proposed position the tool to fix them?

Sometimes it's best to look at how other organizations have addressed an
issue and take lessons away from them. There isn't a need to always reinvent
the wheel, so to speak. It seems like an accepted practice among reputable
organizations to implement an ombudsman position. As noted in the opening
post, there are already some mechanisms in place to ensure that the
Wikimedia Foundation is adhering to its principles (a Board of Trustees,
e.g.), however there are severe limitations to those mechanisms currently.
If there is an issue with a lack of open and public communication, for
example, any non-physical presence will not be able to measure or observe
this effectively, I think.

Is there a reason you think an ombudsman position would not work at
Wikimedia?

> How do you envision this tool working in your example problems?

One proposed idea is to have a "Wikimedia fellow" fill the position. There
are other solutions for implementing this idea, but there are issues of cart
and horse order, I think.

The original e-mail was asking if there had been past discussion about this
idea or if there any virtue to it. You seem to have not answered either
question. :-)

MZMcBride