[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust

[rupert THURNER]

hi bishaka,

many thanks for your mail! i like a lot your attitude a lot to challenge
constantly existing ways of thinking and doing :)

just let us look on others. our exemplary organizations are not doing
anything different than in all other countries:
* http://www.indianredcross.org/sb.htm
* http://www.msfindia.in/
* national indian football leage
* http://www.wwfindia.org/

coming to the other point you made about "living up to expectations". i am
pretty sure you know that the chapters are "per definition" at the center
stage, like wmf is. and you know of the careful ant patient proceeding
which led, in a second try, to a successful UK chapter. and the thoughtful
and friendly and listening proceeding to make every organization in the
wiki universe live up to the expectations and get better, which now can be
seen exemplary by planning the future fundraising and fund disemination.

is there a reason why the wikimedia movement should address it differently
in india? why not be patient? why not be consistent? why not do like the
other big ones, surely much more experienced in india than we are?

rupert

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta at gmail.com>wrote:

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