[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation website

Sun Nov 13 11:30:02 UTC 2005

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
>> Angela wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/9/05, Anthere 
>>> <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I no longer think an uneditable wiki is the best way to present the
>>>>> Foundation to the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll let other people make that decision.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to know if anyone still thinks it is a good idea, and if so
>>> why? It clearly doesn't present an official view, so where is the
>>> benefit in it being uneditable? 
>>
>>
> To whatever extent there really is official policy it makes sense that 
> it is uneditable, but there should be ample opportunity to comment that 
> is directly linked from the uneditable pages.

We then go back to the idea of the blog or of commenting spaces.

The current most pressing point imho is that editors can not directly 
comment on news or even on pages. It would be helpful that talk pages 
are opened to anyone, while the pages themselves have a restricted 
access. I do not know if this is technically possible. Does anyone know ?

OR, it would make sense that the "news" section on the main page is 
transformed in a collective blog, when anyone can comment at will any news.

>> Incidently, if you read Traroth report,  It says
>>
>> 1) Le Louvres is a famous french museum; hosting art, with most of it 
>> much much older than 100 years old, so likely to be considered owned 
>> by humanity
>>
>> 2) Le Louvres has started forbidding taking pictures from this art
>>
>> 3) Only photographers authorized to take picture of art will be Le 
>> Louvres photographers, so ALL photos will be under cp. Which means 
>> that unless you go to Paris and pay the entrance, all this artwork 
>> will be only visible through work under copyright. None will be free 
>> to use.
>>
>> 4) And Traroth concludes he does not think art and freedom will gain 
>> much of this;
>>
>> Now, on another note, compare it to Jimbo's speech at Wikimania, about 
>> freeing 10 things...
>>
>> How different is that ? How unofficial is it to try to push so that 
>> people are free to take pictures of famous paintings 500 years old ?
>>
>> To me, there is no difference. What Jimbo said in his Wikimania speech 
>> is exactly what Traroth says about what is happening in Le Louvres; 
>> The only difference is that Jimbo was speaking generally, while 
>> Traroth is taking an example. But if the Foundation agrees that what 
>> Le Louvres is doing (ie if the Foundation public view is that 
>> forbidding access to old painting is just fine) then I must say I do 
>> not agree with the Foundation public view at all.
>>
>> I will go further in saying that Jimbo's public speech does not fit 
>> either with the Foundation position.
>>
>> Then, if neither Jimbo's nor my position are the positions of the 
>> Foundation... how do we define what the official position of the 
>> Foundation is ? 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the function of the Board?  The Board can and should support 
> a policy of "freeing" the art and the museums, and explain what that 
> means in general terms.  It should avoid taking that into great detail 
> because of the wide variety of country specific or project specific 
> circumstances that can exist.  The wonder of NPOV is that it is very 
> difficult to pin down in a way that can be applied the same way to all 
> projects; at the same time it has been a key factor in Wikipedia's success.
> 
> When it comes to the Louvre situation it shoudl not be up to the 
> Foundation to take a specific stand about those circumstances, but it 
> can take the position in principle that photographs of portraits that 
> have themselves gone into the public domain in the relevant country are 
> not copyrightable.  The French association may be able to elaborate this 
> further in relation to what its members may do in France, and what ways 
> of circumventing unjust rules are acceptable.  If I visit France, and 
> choose to sneak a camera into the Louvre, I can still do so at my own risk.
> 
>> Now, there is another important point.
>> Traroth position on Le Louvres issue is clearly supported by Wikimedia 
>> France. Similarly, other people are currently working to free some 
>> information, such as the people working on the ESA images issue. Most 
>> of these actions are linked with the French and/or German associations.
>>
>> Should we also remove all descriptions of what the german and french 
>> associations are doing from the WMF website, upon the principle that 
>> those actions are not official views of the Foundation ? Does that 
>> mean what the associations do are contrary to the Foundation goals ? 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
>> I am quite worried of what you seem to imply in saying that this 
>> article does not reprensent our official view, because it represents 
>> my view and quite probably the view of at least one chapter. If we 
>> remove everything but only what Jimbo's words, then, I agree, there is 
>> no sense in that website. 
> 
> 
> Whole Foundation views are not just about your or Jimbo's words.  It is 
> always a problem when an organization has one key leader whose words are 
> so influential that they will be taken as absolute truth or duty.  He 
> becomes trapped in his role as an idol. and must be careful with his 
> words lest some idiot take a ridiculously extreme interpretation.  This 
> is why it's even more important for the Board to take a collective 
> representative position.
> 
> Ec

Agreed.
The main problem we then face here is basically that I am nearly the 
only board member interested in putting information there, that goes 
beyond just adding news to the news section.

Michael, I think, never added anything (he is working a lot on the 
financial side in particular, but does so behind curtains). Tim has only 
added meeting notes. Angela is mostly editing the news section. Jimbo, I 
think, only ever added the announcement of Danny's employment. Even 
pages such as benefactors are not updated.

We can not talk of taking a collective representative position when 4 
members just do not comment publicly on their position. I could try to 
add what I think is a summary, but how representative can it be if board 
members do not even check what is written at all ?
You would believe it could be just managed the wikipedia way (cite your 
sources...), but even this is not possible, as most discussions are in 
private mails or on private mailing lists... so can not be cited at all.

So... trapped between the
* you can not talk in other people name
* but you can not cite their words either

What is left ?

Not much.

At this point, I can go back to my own blog and at least talk in my 
name. Any other information, editors or non editors can go and seek it 
with other board members or officers. If one wants to know more about 
our grants, he may go and ask Danny. If one wants to know more about our 
current legal issues, he can go and ask directly to Soufron. If one 
wants to know more about business deals, he can go and directly ask to 
Jimbo. Is that efficient ? Absolutely not.

Collective information can only provided if
* people collectively produce it
* or if people agrees that one of them provide, with the inherent risk 
of erroneous interpretation.

To my opinion, the Foundation website should reflect what it is taking 
care of, what its activity is, what is the opinion of its individual 
members, or its collective opinion, as well as what the chapters are doing.
Fact is, if nothing is written at all, either the opinion will be that 
we do nothing, or it will be that we are not transparent.

ant