[Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

Wed May 31 06:11:42 UTC 2006

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> 
> 
>>--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>
>>
>>>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
>>>>amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
>>>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
>>>>professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
>>>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
>>>>nature.
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
>>>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
>>>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
>>>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
>>>what it does best.
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the Wikimedia Foundation
>>(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, am an amateur when it
>>comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. And yet I'm the CFO. Which
>>may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small budget, but not now. 
>>
>>I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied responsibilities that
>>require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the Wikimedia treasurer who does
>>have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but there simply is a limit to
>>what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or two - at most - a day to
>>this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education perspective.  
>>
>>That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into effect once the foundation
>>finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director. 
>>
>>The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up. 
>>
> 
> I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid 
> staff.  I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to 
> dry in the CFO job.  While you have no doubt worked at the position to 
> the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity 
> with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and 
> avoided volunteering for the task.  I really don't think that the Board 
> has ever been on top of this portfolio.
> 
> The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different 
> concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will 
> indeed be different in these two organizations.  In many respects we 
> need to start building a firewall between the two.  This would leave the 
> WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while 
> Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their 
> innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that 
> any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing.  There 
> are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that 
> development with great glee.  There needs to be an arm's length 
> relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address 
> that.
> 
> Ec

Hello

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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