[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[GerardM]

Hoi,
You assume that people get to know the Wikimedia Foundation through
Wikipedia. A common assumption but it is wrong in that the Wikimedia
Foundation is there not only for Wikipedia but also for Wikipedia.

There are other project and when people consider things it is most
often seen in the light of what is good for Wikipedia must be good for
the rest. Well, suprise that is a fallacy.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 6/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/1/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Later we got closed wikis and private board chats
> > as a side affair. Recent
> > > statements like the ones quoted above give the
> > impression that both board
> > > members find the Wikimedia community has become a
> > pain in the neck at times,
> > > better to be ignored, or kept in the dark.
> >
> > No. What Angela pointed out is that there was an
> > open meeting about
> > the committees, about the need for a CEO, and so on
> > (we created a
> > separate meeting specifically to discuss the
> > ExecCom). For arguing for
> > the open meeting, Angela and myself received little
> > but scorn from the
> > existing group of people who were likely to serve on
> > these committees.
> > (Anthere was in the middle of her pregnancy at the
> > time.) The
> > community members from the outside who joined hardly
> > participated at
> > all.
> >
> > This wasn't a small number of people, something like
> > 70 in the main
> > meeting. See the logs at:
> >
> > http://scireview.de/wiki/com2/channel.log
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Executive_committee/February_11%2C_2006_open_meeting_log
> >
> > Note that to this day, the second log contains a
> > claim by Jimbo that I
> > "deeply misrepresented" him during the ExecCom
> > meeting, without any
> > actual elaboration of why or how that is the case. I
> > will not repeat
> > some of the other things that have been said.
> >
> > You will also note that in the end, it was mostly me
> > and another small
> > group of people arguing. I know you were there, but
> > there are many
> > people who are on this list who weren't. Now we are
> > given the usual
> > round of whining: "I don't like IRC!" "I wasn't
> > informed!" "My cat ate
> > my homework!"
> >
> > Participating in these meetings, for me, has not
> > exactly been an
> > exercise in gaining popularity or favor; rather the
> > opposite. Taking a
> > stand against a prevailing line of thinking strains
> > relations with
> > people, and that should not be done unless there is
> > a clear benefit.
> >
> > This was a crucial meeting where a case could have
> > been made, by the
> > community, for organizing and structuring Wikimedia
> > in an open and
> > participatory fashion. There are very few people who
> > were willing to
> > actually make that case.
> >
> > For the "inside people" this is easy to explain: as
> > we see with
> > adminship on Wikipedia, open and accountable models
> > are quickly
> > subjected to constant harassment by self-appointed
> > "accountability
> > activists". Having your private little clubs and
> > mailing lists (some
> > of which, as we have heard, even the Board doesn't
> > know about or have
> > access to) makes things so much easier. Why put up
> > with the hassle of
> > an open meeting when you can have a closed one?
> >
> > As for the outside people, perhaps their lack of
> > participation is
> > because they don't care about "organizational
> > stuff," perhaps it's
> > because Wikimedia has historically been so opaque
> > that people have
> > expected that it needs to stay that way. Whatever
> > the reason, people
> > like myself frankly lose the motivation to invest
> > time in a lost
> > cause.
> >
> > Just like Wikipedia has to deal with vandalism and
> > trolls for allowing
> > anyone to edit, an open organization would have to
> > deal with
> > incompetence and maliciousness in return for rapid
> > growth and network
> > benefits. Rather than invent the organizational
> > equivalent of wiki
> > processes -- something which would require a lot of
> > creative thinking
> > from the brightest minds of Wikimedia -- it's much
> > more convenient to
> > say: "wiki and organization are different things and
> > need to be kept
> > separate." And, guess what, the lawyers agree!
> >
> > There is virtually no active pressure or demand from
> > the actual
> > community for openness, participatory processes and
> > transparency
> > within the Wikimedia Foundation. As a result, there
> > are very little.
> > The committees which have been formed are useful,
> > but they pick and
> > choose their members on a case by case basis (or
> > perhaps I should say
> > "face by face") -- cf. GerardM's rejected membership
> > application to
> > the Special Projects committee. At least during the
> > transitional
> > phase, the amount of bureauracy is even worse than
> > it was at the time
> > we were ruled by the Board and the Board alone.
> >
> > A process whereby every committee holds open, widely
> > announced
> > meetings and where advisor status is granted
> > instantly without
> > bureaucratic process was discussed, but does not
> > seem to be practiced
> > by any of the committees.
> >
> > Even a trivial idea like putting a couple of new
> > community-elected
> > members on the Board has been proposed years ago but
> > never
> > implemented. But, then again, has there been any
> > pressure from the
> > community for such change to hapepn? Hardly at all.
> > When a couple of
> > "big shot" outside people are appointed to Board
> > positions and the
> > Board remains otherwise as it is, sure, there will
> > be the usual round
> > of whining. But during the processes that actually
> > matter, the people
> > who whine later tend to be conspicuously absent.
> >
> > So, Wikimedia is shaped by people who feel that the
> > very philosophy
> > that made WP a success is not applicable to
> > organizations. Wikimedia
> > will become a functioning non-profit with the usual
> > bureucratic
> > processes, some successful fundraising, a few good
> > partnerships here
> > and there, a bunch of "professionals", lots of
> > infighting among
> > volunteers, etc. It will not become the open
> > platform for social and
> > technological change that it could be -- the wide
> > network of people
> > who are interested in building a free knowledge and
> > free culture
> > movement.  And who is to blame for that? Not the
> > people who made it
> > so. They have only the best interests of Wikimedia
> > in mind and work
> > their ass of to do what they can to make it a
> > success. The people who
> > are to blame are those who did not participate in
> > turning Wikimedia
> > into something else, something larger, when it
> > mattered.
> >
> > Erik
> > _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> Without knowing the full history, or many details at
> all, I can understand both sides of this.  It is a
> difficult issue.  Right now, the people who will end
> up with access to the system, will simply be those who
> have made themselves known to the people with access.
> This is generally how the world works, and there has
> been some discusion about the problems with this in
> the Checkuser thread as well.  Within an organization
> like WMF, this leads to a few problems in my eyes.
> One you miss out on the qualified, experienced
> people's input who do not happen to have a political
> bent. And most importantly you skew the whole
> organization away from the diverse and global feel.
> That saddens me sitting here in the US, so I imagine
> is really upsets the more "diverse" people  around.
> This is also the reason there is the blurry line
> between en.WP and WMF that has been brought up here.
> Because most people only get access to the latter is
> through the former.
>
> That said it is much easier to get things done when
> they are kept closed.  I cannot imagine how a truly
> open system would work, and can easily believe it
> would not work well.  I am not so much of an idealist
> as I once was to insist on principles.  I understand
> the need for pragmatism.  However, I would like
> encourage everyone to take a minute to examine where
> we are.  Examine what are the criteria for information
> being put in a public area vs. a closed one.  Be sure
> things are pushed to open areas whenever it is
> practical.  Make a real effort to recruit more people
> in from smaller languages instead of just waiting for
> them to show up here.  I think more recruiting should
> be done period.  For needed skill sets, etc.  I have
> never seen the WMF foundation asking the communities
> for anything besides money and trust.  I believe the
> communities have much more to offer.
>
> Honestly I trust you all, I don't need to read all the
> discussions to feel comfortable here.  However, I
> think that by doing things as you are, you are
> overwhelming yourselves and missing out on the
> experience available in the wider communities.  I
> think anyone who reads this list must get the feeling
> many people are simply overwhelmed with what they have
> taken on.  The idea seems to be this will be fixed by
> hiring professionals, but the further that route is
> followed the more closed this will become.  Or else we
> will have major retention problems.  I can not imagine
> having my *job* open to the critique of all of you.
> The email where it was misunderstood that BradP was a
> paid employee is the tip of the iceberg.  I would
> suggest putting out a call for volunteers for specific
> tasks, and ask for resumes(which is a good example of
> something that *should* be kept closed).  Look for
> people with actual experience and that can work
> together so no one is overwhelmed.  And whenever
> possible people you do *not* already know well.
> Seriously on a wiki a through read of someone
> contributions can tell you most all the things you
> would learn from a solid acquaintance.
>
> I truly believe if there is not a effort made to keep
> everything as open as possible now, there will be when
> the chapters come into thier own.  So I am not too
> concerned.  Although it would be better from a
> practical standpoint, if the middle ground could be
> found now.
>
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>