[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust

[Bishakha Datta]

Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,

Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want to
take this conversation forward.

One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness within
the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are
certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens -
these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored
in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated
almost as sacrilege.

One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started
operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there -
regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been
expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has
implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which
deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some sort
of trespasser or gate-crasher).

A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and
without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every
country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many
countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only workable
model?)

For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27
countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not
mistaken.

India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories,
atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.

If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia
movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities,
not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge to
people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a second
entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources
do not seem to be scarce.

Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in
any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email: "...this
new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the potential
to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage
anymore."

I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity, should
feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove
that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the
chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the
community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying
any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.

And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too -
via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it
doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then, will
it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't think
anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that would
be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect
with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).

So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in
India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what
this problem actually is.

Best
Bishakha

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India

[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters