[Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

Sat Jul 16 06:20:23 UTC 2011

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse -
>> the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and
>> could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal
>> vehicle.
>
>
> I don't entirely agree. A good name for a movement is one that
> describes while it labels, e.g. "Creative Commons". I'd like a better
> name than "the free culture" when referring to the broader sense of
> "us". If we can come up with one, then win.

Great  observation and great reply.

It _is_ putting the cart before the horse to pick a name before you
start picking members.  Logically you first assemble a group of
"Movement Sites", then invite their representatives to a discussion,
and then collectively decide on a name.

But, right now, we have the strategic advantage that since we're the
ones organizing, we can pick the tentative name now and we can pick
the sites invited in the first wave of invitations.

That have been LOTS of "free info sharing" movements.  What would make
this one special?

Basically, that it is intrinsically and clearly tied to the "Global
Wikimedia Commmunities" and is an extension OF the Wikimedia values ON
other sites.

If we pick a name as generic as "Open Knowledge", or if we invite
potential members before we get a tentative name, then how will we
communicate the idea of that the movement is centered around
Wikimedia, its values, and its success?

How will we ensure that the "Wikimedia beyond WMF servers" movement
can be promoted and supported by the existing Wikimedia movement and
its foundation.

If we just start "a new" movement with no clear tie to the existing
Wikimedia  groups, think of a name is simple, but the resulting
movement will be neither special nor new.

We want other projects to, be able to have the exact same kind of
relationship with our  foundation that our existing projects enjoy, if
all parties agree.  That will still have to be decided on a
case-by-case basis, but that's the goal of forming a new movement-- to
help the WMF identify, ally with, and cooperate with those projects
that are part of its movement without being part of its serverfarm.

Our foundation is something very one-of-a-kind.   Nonprofit
foundations are a dime a dozen, but OUR foundation is a group of
non-profit professionals who have "adapted themselves" to interface
with a large, diverse, global community-- and vice versa.

A foundation "run by" an activist  wiki community with the help of
high-quality professionals--  I know of no other organization that has
ever developed in quite this way, and it seems to be doing things that
nobody else ever succeeded in doing.

Free information movements aren't new-- what is new is Wikimedia.
It's managed to keep a large, coherent community for a decade, it's
managed to stabilizing and multiply our funding source, it provides
high grade strategic support and leadership--  that's the "special
element".

If an Unnamed Movement doesn't start off clearly tied to Wikimedia,
the job isn't going to get any easier once we invite people who aren't
currently even part of Wikimedia.  If it's hard for us to decide what
our name and our values are, it's only going to get more difficult
after we invite people who are currently more tied to Mediawiki than
Wikimedia.

After all, we only want people who are basically okay with "Wikimedia
Values".   Clarifying that vision BEFORE assembling the candidate
members is important.

A brand name isn't the ONLY way to communicate a clear, strong tie to
WMF/Wikimedia, but it is a very very powerful way.   And remember, we
-basically- want the foundation to have a sort of veto power over
formal membership in the Unnamed Movement.  I can't swear how a future
group of people will actually behave, but the hope is that the the
'core' of this Larger Unnamed Movement should so closely tied to WMF
that we forget they're not part of it.

For the "most core" projects, ties to the foundation will happen
anyway on a  case by case-- but the IDEA is that there could be a
movement set up to include projects too new or too small to merit ANY
such evaluation by the foundation.   But the foundation should always
feel comfortable supporting and promoting this larger unnamed
movement.   They should also feel comfortable disavowing isolated
bad-faith actors who 'claim' a kinship to the movement.

If I just invite the projects that, in my mind, share our values, how
do we know we won't wind up a with a group that the foundation and our
projects AREN'T comfortable supporting?

If the new movement is "just another" free information movement-- one
with no clear ties to WMF or the existing Wikimedia Movement, then the
people who join it won't have any clear ties to WMF either.   And WMF,
therefore, will, in turn, not feel as connected to the larger movement
and not feel as comfortable supporting it.

A movement can't have a gatekeeper-- the lack of a gatekeeper is what
makes movements so powerful.

That said-- it's important that we have a movement that looks as much
as possible like WMF was, in fact, the gatekeeper---  we like the
group that arises by letting WMF be the gatekeeper, we just know that,
in practice, WMF won't have time (or need) to perform the
time-intensive task of gatekeeping evaluation for every single last
project that is going to want to join The Unnamed Movement.

A lot of Open Knowledge Movements have come and gone on the internet--
what's new and special is that this movement would, from birth,
"Wikimedia's" open knowledge movement.

(and indeed, for me, it's not about movement-making as much as it's
about reclaiming all the projects ideologically in our movement, but
which our movement  doesn't currently get credit for, simply because
they are hosted elsewhere)

Thanks so much to all the great feedback from everyone on this.

Also,  lots of people have sent lists of potential candidate
organizations and projects to me-- please keep doing that.  I haven't
put them on-wiki because I don't want to offend any sites that aren't
in the first wave of invitations-- but the list definitely needs
assembling, regardless of what names and movement structures arise out
of this thread-- so if you known good candidates:  Projects that
"share Wikimedia Values"-- shout them out.

Alec