[Foundation-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia

Wed Mar 12 06:36:11 UTC 2008

Delirium wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>   
>> What makes this more complicated, though, is the question of whether  
>> Wikimedia should gear its strategies in response to what the  
>> "community" (however defined) wants, as distinct from what the world  
>> needs.  We articulate our primary mission in terms of the world rather  
>> than in terms of the community.  It is not inconceivable that what the  
>> world wants or needs is not entirely the same as what the community  
>> wants. If so, then what?
>>
>> My own view, as I think is we should serve the world as a whole, of  
>> which the community is an outspoken, well-informed, but still  
>> relatively small subset.
>>     
>
> This can only be pushed to a certain point, though. Wikimedia cannot do 
> *anything* without a supportive community, since its service to the 
> world at large consists entirely of providing community-produced content 
> under a free license. Of course, perhaps slightly annoying the 
> content-producing community if it produces significant benefits is worth 
> it. But doing something that the community dislikes so much that a 
> significant part of it leaves is not going to help Wikimedia serve the 
> world at large, unless it has a good strategy for recruiting 
> replacements, or is going to get so much money that it can hire paid 
> staff to write articles. It seems like an unwise sort of brinksmanship 
> in general.
>
> -Mark
>
> __________
I agree with you both.

Since coming to Wikimedia, I've been struck by how frequently 
non-community members -journalists, biz dev people at other 
organizations, etc.- seem to reflexively assume there's a 
fundamental/irreconcilable tension between what "the community" wants 
and what I, or the organization, want.  That I would put ads on the 
projects if only the community would let me. That "the community" 
prevents certain kinds of business deals, etc.

It's such an odd assumption. Obviously I joined this organization 
because I share its values and its goals - if I wanted to do things that 
were diametrically opposed to them, I can't imagine why I would've come 
here.

Mike is correct that we should not confuse the people who make the 
content, with the people we are trying to serve. There's overlap there 
-contributors are also readers- but it's not 100%.  For example, we 
commonly assume contributors tend to be young, geeky and male, while 
readers probably map much more against the general population. (That's 
why I think usability is important - because it would encourage and 
support broader participation, which in my mind equates to broader 
relevance and usefulness.)  And yes, our job is clearly to serve the 
readers' interests, rather than our own.

But Mark is also correct. Even from a purely practical standpoint, it 
wouldn't make sense for the organization to alienate the people who 
create the stuff, who are critical to its success. Individual people 
will of course always come and go for their own reasons, but it would be 
deeply counterproductive for us (staff, or board, or whomever) to do 
something that the community as a whole would find alienating.