[Foundation-l] Chapters

Tue Aug 9 13:43:55 UTC 2011

On Aug 8, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:39 PM, <Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Decentralization isn't some random choice that somehow was attached to this
>> movement; it is the only way the program functions at all. WMF professionals
>> can't begin to account for the program work being accomplished by the
>> movement.  Has there been a recent push to catalog local train stations on
>> the Albanian Wikipedia or is the current trend of work translating articles
>> from a larger Wikipedia? No one knows what is actually going on in all
>> wikis. Only that something goes on. But why does it go on? Because all these
>> people, who could never dream of all being able to speak to one another any
>> more than they could stand to live in one another's cultures, all get a
>> chance to comfortably make their mark on something that seems to matter. And
>> they feel rightfully that this makes them a stakeholder in something that
>> matters and perhaps also feel a little more securely about how much they
>> themselves matter.  Recent changes doesn't move because of "the Wikipedia
>> brand", nor because of how "professional" WMF is run, nor because someone
>> that has no understanding of how the program work of Wikimedia is
>> accomplished feels that a description of WMF operations fails his gut check.
>> Recent changes moves because individuals feel empowered by Wikimedia
>> websites.  Recent changes moves entirely based of human feelings of worth
>> and power and changing those feelings can make it move faster or slower. And
>> there is one overarching reason people click on the banners to donate $, and
>> that is because they believe donating will keep website live and recent
>> changes moving.  Everything WMF does, should be checked against how it
>> either helps or hinders that. And it impossible to both centralize and
>> empower disparate people at the same time.
> 
> 
> This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with
> chapters?
> 
> Just about everything that makes Wikimedia projects what they are can and
> does take place irrespective of the existence of a formal, legal
> organization in a particular jurisdiction.  Our putative Albanian
> contributors do not wonder, as they write their train station articles,
> whether there exists within the borders of Albania a legally instituted
> non-profit organization acting in support of Wikimedia principles; they see
> themselves as participants in an online project, not agents of a local
> charity.
> 
> Nor does off-wiki collaboration require that a formal entity be in
> existence.  Off-wiki activities -- whether social meetups or more formal
> outreach efforts to GLAM institutions and elsewhere -- are no less effective
> for being organized by loose groups of interested participants.  So long as
> there is no need to handle substantial funds -- and how much of Wikimedia
> contributors' typical work requires such? -- the lack of a legally
> constituted organization matters little.
> 
> But to take this one step further, let us assume -- for the sake of argument
> -- that the activities of the contributor community _do_ require the
> existence of a dedicated legal entity in a particular jurisdiction.  One
> could, potentially, construct a scenario where this is the case; for
> example, someone wishes to donate a set of copyrighted works, and prefers
> that an organization subject to local laws be responsible for handling the
> process.  Even in this case, however, there is no requirement that the legal
> entity be a "chapter" of the Wikimedia Foundation -- or, to be more precise,
> that the entity have in place a particular sort of trademark usage agreement
> with the WMF.  I can think of no conceivable need that could be filled by a
> local entity holding rights to (non-commercial!) use of Wikimedia trademarks
> but could not be filled just as well by a local entity identical in every
> way save for the lack of such access to said trademarks.
> 
> This is not to say that there aren't very good reasons for having these
> trademark agreements in place, of course; but the reasons have more to do
> with effective brand marketing than with any _need_ on anyone's part.
> 
> 

You are right that this decentralization doesn't neccessarily have to be anything like "chapters".  But chapters happened for whatever reason and no-one is trying to be rid of them. The validity of the argument that chapters aren't aboslutely needed, doesn't make it any better of an idea to keep them around and infantalize and insult them. Imagine how these events will sound as they  are be spread through all the people working in RC who might hear of them.  By the natural urge to fit it into a story and the unavoidable half-understanding of passing language barriers; it becomes a plank in the narrative of WMF as Imperialism.  And that is the sort of story that if built up completely will have a real negative effect on RC.

 Funding chapters by grants from WMF so that they all use the money in the same WMF approved way is a systematically bad idea in the same way sending shoes to Africa is a bad idea.  Redefining the chapters who participated in a joint fundraiser with WMF as WMF's "payment processors" is straight-up insulting.  Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything that does not maximize donations is laughable.  The obvious solution to the stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually undesirable and should not be pursued.

BirgitteSB