[Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

Wed May 31 10:11:09 UTC 2006

On 5/31/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> You are absolutely correct both Foundation and Wikipedia are two
> different conceps, and this is why Gavin comments are interesting. Some
> of his comments mix the two systems resulting in a description which
> would be neither acceptable from the community (Wikipedia) point of view
> nor from the board (Foundation) point of view.

I agree, and then I don't.

>
> Gavin : "I would imagine that a simple flow could be as follows:
> volunteer works on a project, gets more involved, gets groomed to become
> the project leader, stays in that for a year and grooms his / her
> replacement, gets invited to join the core team, gets groomed to become
> director, serves for a set period, becomes a board member."
>
> Implies a pyramidal organisation of Wikipedia with the Foundation on
> top, which is absolutely not the way we are currently organised. There
> are some non-official project leaders, but they lead only by voice and
> reputation, not by authority.

I don't agree with your interpretation of this as a pyramidal
organisation. If we look at the way we have been working today, this
is exactly how things have happened, and not for the worst. In the
organisation, people have started working in the projects, and slowly
become a part of the organisation, and taken responsibilities within
the organisation. It seems a responsible way of doing things...if we
go to the end. By going to the end I mean this:

People start in the projects, they become leaders in some ways (and
yes, I agree with your assessment that people are not "leaders" of the
projects as such, ie. their leadership is a community-based one,
nothing official, and I agree Gavin probably used the wrong terms
here), they take an interest in the organisation and get involved in
the organisation. However, to go back to Ray's firewall, there comes a
time where people who are involved in the organisation *have* to
understand and accept  that heir role as an editor in the projects and
their role in the organisation need to be kept strictly separate.
Which, for most of us working in the organisation, is not the case
today. This would mean for example giving up our rights as admin or
steward, or using them wisely (ie. only for non controversial things,
and things that have *nothing* to do with the organisation) - however
I believe that  *not using* is harder than *not having* in the long
run. The difficulty is to make sure that people in the projects
understand that the organisation is *not* the answer to their edit
wars, to the troll that disrupts their project, that these things are
a community matter, to be settled by the community.

Although I am myself an advocate of bringing fresh blood in (ie. non
wikipedians aboard the organisation), I believe that not having ever
edited (and possibly not having ever been made aware of what being an
admin or a steward implies) gives you only a partial view of what
Wiki*m*edia is all about. And for some responsibility laden positions
within the organisation, that experience is needed. Not for all.

In the organisation, there will be, and there already is, a need for
outside people who do the stuff we won't do (accounting, answering the
phones, business development etc.). And there will be (and there
already is) a need for inside people to make sure that the stuff that
touches the projects in their core/directions is carried through *to*
and *with* the community. What I believe everybody needs to understand
is that whether someone working as a professional (understand: paid)
for the organisation comes from the community or not is irrelevant, as
long as they can do the job that is asked of them. And what we also
need to understand is that there comes a time when *even* if it is
said that *volunteers can do the jobs for no money*, the organisation
may have a different view, and when the organisation feels the need to
have someone who is accountable (which volunteers are not by
definition), they *have* to be able to make that choice, by their own
terms.

I do not think the organisation should be *ruled* by the projects. And
I do not think either that the projects should be *ruled* by the
organisation. I totally agree with Ray's need for a firewall. I think
however that we need to find ways to keep the projects in touch with
the organisation and the organisation in touch with the projects. This
has to go through information, and information is best carried trhough
with people who have a knowledge of both the organisation and the
projects. So the need for professionals issued from the projects is
important, as well as the need for people who are not issued from the
projects. It has to go both ways, with the understanding from both
parts that an organisation is *not a wiki*, no more than a wiki is an
*organisation*.

It is a very tough call though, because the organisation (and here I
mean the organisation at large, chapters included) also works on
bringing new editors (academics, scientists, professors, you name it)
in Wikipedia or in the other projects to edit, and doing this and
leaving these people be treated as vandals because they make a mistake
does not help the organisation in its goal of "spreading the word" and
"supporting" the Wikimedia projects. Projects and organisation have to
work hand in hand. A clear(er) definition of the roles, the do's and
dont's of both should help find a way.

>
> Gavin : "Project management may not be about content generation alone.
> It is also about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and
> answerable to the organisation at large."
>
> Precisely mixes the two jobs. Collecting, organising and creating
> content PLUS settling disputes between editors is entirely a Wikipedia
> job and should not involve Foundation. It does only because there is a
> confusion between a role at the Foundation and a moral authority AND
> because the Foundation hosts the project (so, is liable, has access to
> logs, can block etc...). Budget or being answerable to the organisation
> at large is a Foundation issue and absolutely not a Wikipedia one.

Here I don't know if you are right or wrong in your understanding of
Gavin's sentence. My take is that his "disputes settling" applies to
the disputes *the organisation* could be thrown into, not to an edit
war in Wikipedia. But if he meant what you say, then I agree with you
completely.

>
> This does not remove in any sense the value of his comments on the need
> for continuity. But the fact is that he seems to see one system... where
> there are several systems. Wikipedia is one. Wikibooks is another.
> Wiktionary a third one. These three are tightly related and work under
> rather similar rules. Foundation is an entirely different system.
>
> Wikipedia system is free to join. Editors may stay anonymous.
> Foundation system is very closed, based on peer approval. Real names are
> registered. Foundation is NOT a democracy.
>
> Roughly, all editors are equal in terms of decision making on wikipedia.
> On Foundation, some have a voting voice, others have an advising voice.
>
> Wikipedia organisation is very flexible and its rules change without
> much pain, upon editors push. Foundation is pretty static, relying on
> bylaws which are not easily changed, with decisions made through votes
> and resolutions; through official delegations to individuals and
> committees. And all this with the weight of history.

*nods*

>
> Wikipedia editors are all volunteers. They have no legal obligations. If
> unhappy, they can easily quit anytime for a wikibreak or definitly.
> Foundation has paid staff or board members earning money through
> speaking fees. Others are only volunteers. Earning a living does not
> imply working harder, so, to the contrary of Wikipedia, people working
> on Foundation issues have to manage with the concept of mixing
> volunteers with paid members. Whether paid or not, people are expected
> to be available 7/7 24/24. For most, there is a binding relationship.
>
> Wikipedia editors may feel accountable... or not. They can actually do
> many stupid things and not be embarassed by more than losing a sysop
> status. Foundation activity is scrutinized (an audit has been going on
> for several weeks now), the board is accountable and lawsuits DO happen.
>
> In most cases, Wikipedia can run at its own peace. Nothing is really
> urgent, everything can be delayed. It is easy enough to call for more
> volunteers as well. Editors may go on a rant for days.
> On Foundation, this is not true. If a bill is not paid, the site stop
> working. If a cease and desist is not answered, we can get in big
> troubles. When a japanese editor complains at 4 am that personal data is
> posted on the website and should be *immediately* removed... it must be
> *immediately* removed. When there is too much work to do, one reduces
> its sleep time. Foundation people are expected to behave professional.

I agree fully with the general "pace" thing here.

However, I believe you are the one who is mixing both roles in your
example of the personal data. I do not agree that if a {{timezone}}
person believes that their problem must be taken care of *at once* it
has to be taken care of *at once*. If the firewall was in place, there
would be office hours, and yes, it would be the role of the people in
the office to take care of the thing first thing in the morning. But
you cannot expect an office to run 7/7 and 24/24. I believe the fact
that most of us in the organisation are *also*
editors/admins/stewards/developpers has thinned the line between what
is acceptable and what is not. The fact that the separation between "I
am an editor" and "I have responsibilities in the organisation" is not
obvious enough, that the line is not drawn clearly enough makes those
who are in the organisation feel responsible 24/24. And that should
*not* be. This implies a change of mentality both in the organisation
and in the community of the projects.

>
> And I could go on forever.
>
> One of the hardest things is to identify the needs of "system
> Foundation", talk about these needs, and read criticism from people
> belonging to "system Wikipedia", who have no beginning of an idea of
> where the need comes from, why it is critical... but who considers they
> have a say nevertheless.

*nods*
And again, a clearer separation would also imply better expectations
on both parts. If everybody knows what everybody's role is, and
information flows both ways, there is no need to challenge anybody's
decisions.

>
> I think Ec, that you are correct in saying we need a firewall between
> the two systems; You, as an editor, feels this need. Me, as a board
> member, feel it as well. I think it is slowly being put into place.

I feel it too. And yes, I agree that it is slowly coming.

>
> A huge limitation for the construction of the firewall will stay the
> legal considerations.

I am not so sure. If we gave ourselves the time to understand and
explain what legal implications there *really* are in editing the
projects as a member of the organisation, I believe that could be
solved very easily. It only takes time that we probably have not given
ourselves.

>Contrary of what you say, much have been said, but
> it has been said in other places than public mailing lists (precisely
> due to our paranoia :-)). The WP:Office issue is still unsolved though.

See above.

Delphine

-- 
~notafish