haha, I like that expression ... need to remember the ear on the ground:) the big problem with a trust is imo, that it is not possible for an ordinary person to get involved in a decisive role. a chapter takes anybody as member and anybody can be elected to its board.
rupert On Nov 23, 2011 7:21 AM, "Bishakha Datta" <bishakhada...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.thur...@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 <bishakhada...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l