[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 92, Issue 29

[Joan Goma]

When I explain Wikipedia I hear the same comments everyday. Who is in
charge for each article? If everybody can edit ‘’my’’ article how can I
control its contents? What happens if we have an overlap between editors in
the same article and we can’t explain the exact role of everyone?



I don’t understand why even wikimedians when going to organize things
outside wikipedia are very reluctant to give some opportunities to try with
new models of organization that we have discovered in wikipedia that can
working very well. They tend to stick with old organizational models that
we know they work well with structures and principles not very well
matching with wikimedia values like hierarchy, exclusivity …

From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 92, Issue 29
>
>
> Europe is a big culturally diverse subcontinent of Eurasia with many
> different Wikimedia organisations. So is India. India could organise itself
> similarly to Europe with chapters following Political boundaries, or you
> could do it by language instead, or perhaps by function - I've been
> involved in charities where the fundraising organisation was quite distinct
> from the volunteering fundspending organisation. Or maybe there would be
> some other way that would work for Indian Wikimedians.
>
> My advice as a complete outsider is that there are many ways that India
> could choose to structure itself; but if you come up with a structure that
> leaves Wikimedians from outside India suspecting there would be an overlap,
> then don't be surprised if Indians who are not Wikimedians are similarly
> confused. If Wikimedia in India emerges with a structure that only people
> who are both Indians and also Wikimedians understand then you risk
> confusing the press complicating things for yourselves. If remits are clear
> and minimally overlapping then 1, 5 or 50 organisations might be sensible.
> If remits substantially overlap and you can't clearly explain the different
> roles then its probably best to just have the one organisation.
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
>