[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust

Wed Nov 23 06:20:32 UTC 2011

Thanks for the reply, Rupert, and for pushing me to think harder. I like
that!

Without repeating myself and building on your questions, here's what I'll
say:

I agree that chapters are an important way to take the wikimedia movement
forward across the globe. No issues with that. I'm still not convinced that
*any entity* should see itself at the centre of the movement either
globally or in a country - either because it has members, or because it has
funding, or because it is an entity. For any reason. Why is it important
for an entity in a volunteer movement to be at the centre at all?

If there is anyone or anything that I see at the centre of the wikimedia
movement, it is individual volunteers - who work on the projects, edit day
in and day out, do other things etc. When entities and formal organizations
start up in a country, individual volunteers who are not affiliated to any
of these start seeing themselves as 'lower order volunteers' in some way;
to me, this is tremendously sad. I've heard editors in India say, "I'm just
a volunteer" (to describe themselves, since they are neither office bearers
in the chapter, nor work in the program trust). When I hear that, I feel
we're doing something wrong - the presence of entities in a country should
make individual volunteers and editors feel supported and part of this
universe, not devalued or disconnected.

In response to your questions about not doing it differently in India, I
think there's good reason for us to experiment in different ways in
different geographies - wasn't wikipedia itself a grand experiment to begin
with? But yes, experiment in a way that does not exclude the communities
that have organically grown in these places. If we really want to sustain
the projects at a time when the editor base is declining, I do think some
experimentation may be in order. Agree that things don't work out should be
dropped, but maybe new ways of doing things can also provide new answers.

And yes, a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to work, given how
culturally diverse the world is. So yes, boots on the ground, but also ear
to the ground. :)

Cheers
Bishakha

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM, rupert THURNER
<rupert.thurner at gmail.com>wrote:

> hi bishaka,
>
> many thanks for your mail! i like a lot your attitude a lot to challenge
> constantly existing ways of thinking and doing :)
>
> just let us look on others. our exemplary organizations are not doing
> anything different than in all other countries:
> * http://www.indianredcross.org/sb.htm
> * http://www.msfindia.in/
> * national indian football leage
> * http://www.wwfindia.org/
>
> coming to the other point you made about "living up to expectations". i am
> pretty sure you know that the chapters are "per definition" at the center
> stage, like wmf is. and you know of the careful ant patient proceeding
> which led, in a second try, to a successful UK chapter. and the thoughtful
> and friendly and listening proceeding to make every organization in the
> wiki universe live up to the expectations and get better, which now can be
> seen exemplary by planning the future fundraising and fund disemination.
>
> is there a reason why the wikimedia movement should address it differently
> in india? why not be patient? why not be consistent? why not do like the
> other big ones, surely much more experienced in india than we are?
>
> rupert
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
> >
> > Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want
> to
> > take this conversation forward.
> >
> > One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness
> within
> > the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are
> > certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens -
> > these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored
> > in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated
> > almost as sacrilege.
> >
> > One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started
> > operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there -
> > regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been
> > expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has
> > implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which
> > deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some
> sort
> > of trespasser or gate-crasher).
> >
> > A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and
> > without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every
> > country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many
> > countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only
> workable
> > model?)
> >
> > For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27
> > countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not
> > mistaken.
> >
> > India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories,
> > atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
> >
> > If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia
> > movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities,
> > not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge
> to
> > people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a
> second
> > entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources
> > do not seem to be scarce.
> >
> > Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in
> > any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email:
> "...this
> > new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the
> potential
> > to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage
> > anymore."
> >
> > I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity,
> should
> > feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove
> > that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the
> > chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the
> > community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying
> > any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
> >
> > And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too -
> > via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it
> > doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then,
> will
> > it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't
> think
> > anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that
> would
> > be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect
> > with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
> >
> > So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in
> > India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what
> > this problem actually is.
> >
> > Best
> > Bishakha
> >
> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
> >
> > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
> >
> > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
> >
> > [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>