[Wikipedia-l] Re: No more new Wikipedias !

[Ray Saintonge]

Angela wrote:

>On 9/24/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>  
>
>>I created 5 new Wikipedias in June because I received a request from a
>>Wikimedia Board member. If I receive another such specific request, I'll
>>carry it out. I do that out of loyalty to them, not because I think it
>>contributes to our mission.
>>    
>>
>I doubt you'll get another such request since I've been told that new
>language wikis is not a Board issue and I shouldn't be taking
>decisions on these or asking developers to start them. What people
>fail to realise is that if the Board doesn't take these decisions (and
>perhaps they're right and the Board shouldn't) - then who is going to
>take them? There is increasingly resistance to the Board doing
>anything, but also resistance to them delegating any authority they
>may have had, which is just leading to stagnation. So, who should be
>taking the decision on new language wikis (and also on new projects),
>especially when no
><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages>
>has ever been agreed upon?
>  
>
You're essentially correct.  If the Board doesn't make such decisions 
maybe no-one will, and sometimes that's not entirely a bad thing.  I 
personally think that the proposed policy that you mention makes it too 
easy to start a new Wiki; the proposed Cantonese Wikipedia could likely 
succeed under these policies.  Leaving that aside there is still a 
question of process which remains to be solved.  A strong argument can 
be made that adopting such a policy is within the mandate of the Board 
because it has an overall impact on the Wikimedia projects as a whole.  
This cannot be said of the application of such a policy to a particular 
set of circumstances.  The application needs to be delegated to someone 
who has enough courage to say no when the criteria have not been met;  
that person needs to feel confident that his decision in accordance with 
policy will not be undermined when some disgruntled individual goes 
whinging to the Board.

The broader stagnation dilemma that you raise is a real problem in 
"democratic" structures.  Jimbo has said from time to time on these 
lists that Wikipedia is not a democracy.  That's fine, but even 
Macchiavelli did not believe in a regime of unremitting suppression.  A 
happy populace will always be more productive.  No Board of Directors of 
a large corporation will get entangled in the day-to-day micromanagement 
of that corporation; that would be disastrous.

What does fall within the Board's scope of operation (not it's 
authority, where in law it can do everything) is the right to establish 
a basic operating rule outlining what does the Board do itself, and what 
it delegates.  It then develops credibility by not interfering with the 
work of its delegates as long they act within their duly defined mandates.

When some kind of board structure was being proposed before the 
Wikimedia Foundation was formally established I suggested two levels of 
boards.  One, essentially the present Board, would function more as 
trustees who would ensure that the Foundation remain within the 
principles that led to its establishment; it would also be responsible 
for such broad issues as the financial viability of the organization.  
The second would have a more operational capacity, it could investigate 
proposals in greater detail and advise the trustees about current 
issues; it would have decision-making powers within defined parameters.

The concept of democracy embraced by some of Wikimedia's citizens leaves 
much to be desired.  Sometimes policy changes are passed because no-one 
has noticed a subtle change on a policy page; other policies are 
subjected to votes where very few people know about the vote or 
participate.  In yet other cases policies are debated interminably and 
the policy that wins is the one that's left on the policy page after 
evryone else is exhausted..  In yet other cases there may be a very 
strong debate between two strong-willed individuals with everyone else 
completely avoiding the issue and failing to step in with alternatives 
that would lead to a generally acceptable solution.

Ultimately the question is not about who makes the specific decision to 
go ahead with a new language or project.  It is about how the Board 
scalably defines its own role within the organization, and commits 
itself to that well defined role.

Ec