Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF and the Ladder of Citizen Participation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Sorry, typo: the CAAs serve an average of about 16,000 people a year: see
http://www.communityactionpartnership.com/index.php?option=com_content=view=21=50

"Rogol"

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

>
>> Rogol, there are some interesting ideas in this model, and perhaps useful
>> language to prompt discussion, but you cannot fit a societal model to a
>> modest sized organization.
>>
>> Your conclusion would rely on the WMF (or indeed the Community of
>> Wikimedians) having an inexhaustible supply of politicians and bureaucrats
>> jockying for their sinecures. Though there are quite a few people with
>> related interests, they fail to have a systematic coordination or a
>> machaevelian strategy, nor seem very interested in having these things.
>
>
> Thanks for that.  Arnstein's ladder is based on a study of the working of
> Community Action Agencies [https://en.wikipedia.org/
> wiki/Community_Action_Agencies] in US cities, of which around a thousand
> were set up,  They seem to match the WMF in terms of number of officials
> and citizens (read: staff and volunteers) reasonably well (typically 115
> staff, according to http://www.communityactionpartnership.com/ serving an
> average of 160,000 people each year).   However, as you say, the question
> is whether the model fits the Wikimedia situation and whether it can be
> useful for discussion and planning.  Personally, I was struck by how good
> the fit was.
>
> As to whether there is an inexhaustible supply of volunteers jockeying for
> jobs at the WMF, which I believe to be the correct analogy, I could not
> say.  I do note, however, that it is a common practice for the WMF to
> explicitly seek to hire people with experience of volunteer working on the
> various projects.  In this context I simply note Arnstein's comment
> "Depending on their motives, powerholders can hire poor people to co-opt
> them, to placate them, or to utilize the have-nots' special skills and
> insights."
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> Rogol, there are some interesting ideas in this model, and perhaps useful
>> language to prompt discussion, but you cannot fit a societal model to a
>> modest sized organization.
>>
>> Your conclusion would rely on the WMF (or indeed the Community of
>> Wikimedians) having an inexhaustible supply of politicians and bureaucrats
>> jockying for their sinecures. Though there are quite a few people with
>> related interests, they fail to have a systematic coordination or a
>> machaevelian strategy, nor seem very interested in having these things.
>>
>> A more pragmatic way to measure the WMF is using an organizational
>> maturity
>> model. In these terms the WMF may be measured as doing lots of
>> firefighting
>> (making mistakes and then fixing them) and though having good intentions
>> of
>> learning from the past, this has yet to be seen to be meaningfully
>> repeatable. A key aspect of the stickiness of firefighting is that the WMF
>> can be seen as part of its Americanocentrist thinking to put the interests
>> of the individual over other concerns, so individual firefighters get
>> attention and rewards, while effective project managers are likely to
>> remain invisible.
>>
>> Thanks for your email,  I rarely reply to your stuff on-list or on-wiki,
>> but I appreciate your critical thoughts.
>>
>> Fae
>>
>> On 29 Dec 2016 22:15, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>>
>> I was reading Sherry Arnstein's 1969 paper "A Ladder of Citizen
>> Participation" (JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224)
>> available at
>> http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-
>> citizen-participation.html
>> or at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 and found it remarkably
>> relevant to the issue of the engagement beween the volunteer community and
>> the formal structures of the WMF (Board and executive).
>>
>> The analysis proposes eight stages or rungs to the ladder:
>>
>>1. Manipulation
>>2. Therapy
>>3. Informing
>>4. Consultation
>>5. Placation
>>6. Partnership
>>7. Delegated Power
>>8. Citizen Control
>>
>> They are grouped as 1-2: Non-participation; 3-5: Tokenism; 6-8: Citizen
>> Power (see
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ladder_of_citizen_
>> participation,_Sheey_Arnstein.tif
>> )
>>
>> Reading "volunteer" for "citizen" throughout, I thought it instructive to
>> map some of the WMF activities onto the scale, with quotes from the
>> analysis.
>>
>> 1. Manipulation "In the name of citizen participation, people are placed
>> on
>> rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose
>> of "educating" them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine
>> citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the
>> distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by
>> powerholders."
>>
>> 2. Therapy "under a masquerade of involving citizens in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF and the Ladder of Citizen Participation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

>
>
> Rogol, there are some interesting ideas in this model, and perhaps useful
> language to prompt discussion, but you cannot fit a societal model to a
> modest sized organization.
>
> Your conclusion would rely on the WMF (or indeed the Community of
> Wikimedians) having an inexhaustible supply of politicians and bureaucrats
> jockying for their sinecures. Though there are quite a few people with
> related interests, they fail to have a systematic coordination or a
> machaevelian strategy, nor seem very interested in having these things.


Thanks for that.  Arnstein's ladder is based on a study of the working of
Community Action Agencies [
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Action_Agencies] in US cities, of
which around a thousand were set up,  They seem to match the WMF in terms
of number of officials and citizens (read: staff and volunteers) reasonably
well (typically 115 staff, according to
http://www.communityactionpartnership.com/ serving an average of 160,000
people each year).   However, as you say, the question is whether the model
fits the Wikimedia situation and whether it can be useful for discussion
and planning.  Personally, I was struck by how good the fit was.

As to whether there is an inexhaustible supply of volunteers jockeying for
jobs at the WMF, which I believe to be the correct analogy, I could not
say.  I do note, however, that it is a common practice for the WMF to
explicitly seek to hire people with experience of volunteer working on the
various projects.  In this context I simply note Arnstein's comment
"Depending on their motives, powerholders can hire poor people to co-opt
them, to placate them, or to utilize the have-nots' special skills and
insights."

"Rogol"

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Rogol, there are some interesting ideas in this model, and perhaps useful
> language to prompt discussion, but you cannot fit a societal model to a
> modest sized organization.
>
> Your conclusion would rely on the WMF (or indeed the Community of
> Wikimedians) having an inexhaustible supply of politicians and bureaucrats
> jockying for their sinecures. Though there are quite a few people with
> related interests, they fail to have a systematic coordination or a
> machaevelian strategy, nor seem very interested in having these things.
>
> A more pragmatic way to measure the WMF is using an organizational maturity
> model. In these terms the WMF may be measured as doing lots of firefighting
> (making mistakes and then fixing them) and though having good intentions of
> learning from the past, this has yet to be seen to be meaningfully
> repeatable. A key aspect of the stickiness of firefighting is that the WMF
> can be seen as part of its Americanocentrist thinking to put the interests
> of the individual over other concerns, so individual firefighters get
> attention and rewards, while effective project managers are likely to
> remain invisible.
>
> Thanks for your email,  I rarely reply to your stuff on-list or on-wiki,
> but I appreciate your critical thoughts.
>
> Fae
>
> On 29 Dec 2016 22:15, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>
> I was reading Sherry Arnstein's 1969 paper "A Ladder of Citizen
> Participation" (JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224)
> available at
> http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-
> citizen-participation.html
> or at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 and found it remarkably
> relevant to the issue of the engagement beween the volunteer community and
> the formal structures of the WMF (Board and executive).
>
> The analysis proposes eight stages or rungs to the ladder:
>
>1. Manipulation
>2. Therapy
>3. Informing
>4. Consultation
>5. Placation
>6. Partnership
>7. Delegated Power
>8. Citizen Control
>
> They are grouped as 1-2: Non-participation; 3-5: Tokenism; 6-8: Citizen
> Power (see
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ladder_of_citizen_
> participation,_Sheey_Arnstein.tif
> )
>
> Reading "volunteer" for "citizen" throughout, I thought it instructive to
> map some of the WMF activities onto the scale, with quotes from the
> analysis.
>
> 1. Manipulation "In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on
> rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose
> of "educating" them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine
> citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the
> distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by
> powerholders."
>
> 2. Therapy "under a masquerade of involving citizens in planning, the
> experts subject the citizens to clinical group therapy."
>
> 3. Informing. "the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information -
> from officials to citizens - with no channel provided for feedback and no
> power for negotiation"
>
> 4. Consultation. "People are primarily perceived as statistical
> abstractions, and participation is measured by how many 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF and the Ladder of Citizen Participation

[Fæ]

Rogol, there are some interesting ideas in this model, and perhaps useful
language to prompt discussion, but you cannot fit a societal model to a
modest sized organization.

Your conclusion would rely on the WMF (or indeed the Community of
Wikimedians) having an inexhaustible supply of politicians and bureaucrats
jockying for their sinecures. Though there are quite a few people with
related interests, they fail to have a systematic coordination or a
machaevelian strategy, nor seem very interested in having these things.

A more pragmatic way to measure the WMF is using an organizational maturity
model. In these terms the WMF may be measured as doing lots of firefighting
(making mistakes and then fixing them) and though having good intentions of
learning from the past, this has yet to be seen to be meaningfully
repeatable. A key aspect of the stickiness of firefighting is that the WMF
can be seen as part of its Americanocentrist thinking to put the interests
of the individual over other concerns, so individual firefighters get
attention and rewards, while effective project managers are likely to
remain invisible.

Thanks for your email,  I rarely reply to your stuff on-list or on-wiki,
but I appreciate your critical thoughts.

Fae

On 29 Dec 2016 22:15, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:

I was reading Sherry Arnstein's 1969 paper "A Ladder of Citizen
Participation" (JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224)
available at
http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-
citizen-participation.html
or at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 and found it remarkably
relevant to the issue of the engagement beween the volunteer community and
the formal structures of the WMF (Board and executive).

The analysis proposes eight stages or rungs to the ladder:

   1. Manipulation
   2. Therapy
   3. Informing
   4. Consultation
   5. Placation
   6. Partnership
   7. Delegated Power
   8. Citizen Control

They are grouped as 1-2: Non-participation; 3-5: Tokenism; 6-8: Citizen
Power (see
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ladder_of_citizen_
participation,_Sheey_Arnstein.tif
)

Reading "volunteer" for "citizen" throughout, I thought it instructive to
map some of the WMF activities onto the scale, with quotes from the
analysis.

1. Manipulation "In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on
rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose
of "educating" them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine
citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the
distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by
powerholders."

2. Therapy "under a masquerade of involving citizens in planning, the
experts subject the citizens to clinical group therapy."

3. Informing. "the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information -
from officials to citizens - with no channel provided for feedback and no
power for negotiation"

4. Consultation. "People are primarily perceived as statistical
abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings,
take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in
all this activity is that they have 'participated in participation.' And
what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the
required motions"

5. Placation. "An example of placation strategy is to place a few
hand-picked 'worthy' poor on boards [...] If they are not accountable to a
constituency in the community and if the traditional power elite hold the
majority of seats, the have-nots can be easily outvoted and outfoxed."

6. Partnership. "At this rung of the ladder, power is in fact redistributed
through negotiation between citizens and powerholders."


Can there be aby doubt that the majority of WMF group meetings world-wide
falls under the heading of 1 and 2?  Or that the communications strategy
and product development strategy of the WMF falls under 3?  Or that 4 is a
desciption of the WMF approach to community consultation?  Or that 5 is an
uncannily exact description of the way the community nominates (under the
guise of "electing") a minority of board members who may be removed if they
ask impertinant questions?  Or that there is precisely zero substantiative
activitity that has risen to level 6?


It is clear that on this analysis the WMF/Community engagement is still at
best "Tokenism" -- discussion is invited.


Rogol
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] WMF and the Ladder of Citizen Participation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I was reading Sherry Arnstein's 1969 paper "A Ladder of Citizen
Participation" (JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224)
available at
http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html
or at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 and found it remarkably
relevant to the issue of the engagement beween the volunteer community and
the formal structures of the WMF (Board and executive).

The analysis proposes eight stages or rungs to the ladder:

   1. Manipulation
   2. Therapy
   3. Informing
   4. Consultation
   5. Placation
   6. Partnership
   7. Delegated Power
   8. Citizen Control

They are grouped as 1-2: Non-participation; 3-5: Tokenism; 6-8: Citizen
Power (see
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ladder_of_citizen_participation,_Sheey_Arnstein.tif
)

Reading "volunteer" for "citizen" throughout, I thought it instructive to
map some of the WMF activities onto the scale, with quotes from the
analysis.

1. Manipulation "In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on
rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose
of "educating" them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine
citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the
distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by
powerholders."

2. Therapy "under a masquerade of involving citizens in planning, the
experts subject the citizens to clinical group therapy."

3. Informing. "the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information -
from officials to citizens - with no channel provided for feedback and no
power for negotiation"

4. Consultation. "People are primarily perceived as statistical
abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings,
take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in
all this activity is that they have 'participated in participation.' And
what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the
required motions"

5. Placation. "An example of placation strategy is to place a few
hand-picked 'worthy' poor on boards [...] If they are not accountable to a
constituency in the community and if the traditional power elite hold the
majority of seats, the have-nots can be easily outvoted and outfoxed."

6. Partnership. "At this rung of the ladder, power is in fact redistributed
through negotiation between citizens and powerholders."


Can there be aby doubt that the majority of WMF group meetings world-wide
falls under the heading of 1 and 2?  Or that the communications strategy
and product development strategy of the WMF falls under 3?  Or that 4 is a
desciption of the WMF approach to community consultation?  Or that 5 is an
uncannily exact description of the way the community nominates (under the
guise of "electing") a minority of board members who may be removed if they
ask impertinant questions?  Or that there is precisely zero substantiative
activitity that has risen to level 6?


It is clear that on this analysis the WMF/Community engagement is still at
best "Tokenism" -- discussion is invited.


"Rogol"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,